Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 The voting system – Candidates - Registration The parliamentary system in Britain is a democratic one based on a simple majority vote called the first-past-thepost, in electoral constituencies. In Britain, there are two types of elections: general election (=élection legislative) and by(e)-election. The former is a national election held after the dissolution of Parliament designed to elect a new Parliament. Section 7 of the 1911 Parliament Act states that a general election must be held every 5 years after Parliament has been dissolved and a new Parliament must be summoned by the monarch. Such an election can be called before the end of the 5 years left of the Parliament and this is called an early election (= élection anticipée). This is a common accuracy on the British parliamentary system. The Prime Minister can call for such an early dissolution and general election hoping to benefit from a filgood factor or economic success or alternatively, s/he may wish to go to the polls before a political or economical crisis strikes. A by(e)-election is held in an electoral constituency, when the sitting MP either resigns or dies. Both general elections and by-elections are generally held in Thursday, but this is only a convention as the PM can call an election to be held in any day of the week. It is important to remember that even though a general election is a national one held to elect the people’s representatives to the House of Commons (HC), it is in fact a series of local elections (=élections municipales/1 election in each constituency) held in each parliamentary constituency. The winning party is the one whose candidate wins sufficient constituencies to guarantee an overall majority in the HC. The firs-past-the-post is based on a simple majority: the candidate who obtains the highest number of votes in an electoral constituency is elected to Westminster. For example : in a constituency where 3 candidates stand (=run / se présenter) for an election, if candidate A receives 34% of the votes, candidate B 33% and candidate C 33%, candidate A is the MP, even though 66% of the population have not voted for him (= “winner takes all”’ principle). This system has led to the creation of a 2-party system in which the 2 leadings parties dominate Parliament and only they get to form a government. Indeed, since the 1924 election, no other party than the Labor party and the Conservative party have governed Britain. Thus, the first-past-thepost is seen to ensure strong and stable government avoiding the risk of minority or coalition government being elected both of which are either short-light or unable to govern efficiently such as in Italy or Israel. Since WWI, only one peace time coalition government (1931 to 1935) and only one minority government (March 1974 to October 1974) have held power. This means that parties fight elections on a clear policy platform and hope to be elected on it. Tough we speak of a two-party system. The recent success of the Liberal Democrats in wining 62,6% in 2005 has led some experts to argue that there is now a two-and-a-half-party system. Elections in Britain are cheap and simple to organize. In each constituency which has on average a population of approximately 70,000 people, each elector goes to his/her designated local polling station (=bureau de vote) where s/he signs the electoral register (= la liste électorale) then s/he takes his/her ballot paper (=bulletin de vote) which contains a list of names of the candidates standing for election in the constituency alongside the name of the parties to which they belong. The electors then enter the polling booth (= isoloir) where s/he places an X in front of the name of the candidate of his/her choice. Finally, having folded the envelop and the ballot paper into, s/ he places it in the ballot box (=urne) and this deems to had voted by secret vote.
-1-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 Voting rights To be eligible to vote, one has to be aged 18 or over, be a UK citizen or a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland living in the UK and been registered on the register of parliamentary election. Each adult one s/he has registered on the electoral register, is every year sent a registration form by his/her local authorities (= municipalité) and this form must be filled in and returned before October 15 th each year. This electoral register is renewed every year so we can say that in the UK, the state deals with voters’ registration and ensure that people have the chance to be registered every year.
The way of counting votes on an election nights is a quick one and the overall result is usually clear by the following morning. In each of the 646 constituencies (the number can change. For example, there were 659 constituencies in 1997), party members and local officials count the vote cast at the town hall of the constituency. This is a rapid process. This thing ensures a rapid transition of power, allows a newly elected government to take over power quickly and smoothly or if an incumbent government is reelected, it is able to return swiftly to running the country’s affairs without too much disruption. This process is seen to guarantee electoral responsibility as parties will be judged in future polls based on their campaign pledges (= promesses) rather than deals done with other parties.
Drawbacks: despite this, the system is a controversial one and critics point out several drawbacks to it. First, the two-party system that has developed has proven detrimental to other smaller parties, especially the third party whose share of the nation is not reflected in the number of seats it may gain. In 1987, the Liberal Democrats won 26% of the national vote (= the whole country) = over 1/4, but they only had 23 MPs returned (=elected) to Parliament. In fact, the system is seen to benefit the party in power and the vote casts for losing candidates have absolutely no relevance. Ex: 1997 general election: this election clearly highlighted these 2 points, when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats gained sizable shares of the national vote but the number of seats they actually won was proportionally much lower. National vote
Seats in Parliament
Number of constituencies
Labor
43%
63%
418
Conservatives
30,7%
25%
165
Liberal Democrats
16,8%
7%
46 659
Constituencies The important is to win a constituency, that is what would decide the 2nd column. The Liberal Democrats are not necessarily happy with this system. Similarly can one argue that an election is democratic if a winning candidate receives just 1/3 of the vote with 2/3 of the electoral voting against him/her. The same is true on parties winning -2-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 power. As we have seen in the 1997 figures, Labors won 44 of national vote yet it had 418 MPs elected to Parliament out of a total of 659. Since 1934, no government has won power with an overall majority of public support in terms of national vote. 1935 is the last time a government was elected with over 50% of the national votes. The first-past-the-post system is also believed to dissuade come electors from voting as they known that the result in a constituency is a foregone conclusion since the party candidate they support has no chance of winning in their constituency so they may not even bother to vote.
Campaigns – Finance Once a dissolution is created and the election is called, the campaign will last on average 4 weeks or, less commonly, 3 weeks if a so-called snap election is called. As a result, campaign finance is relatively low. There is no public funding of candidates in the UK but calls for reform of this system have been only increased in recent years, especially following the loans for peerages or cash for coronets when it was revealed that both major parties borrowed but sums of money to finance their electoral campaign in 2005 with lenders believing, often mistaking, that in return for their loan they will receive a peerage. Under current legislation, such loans do not have to be declared while donations must be declared. These loans are seen as a means of amassing large undeclared sums of money which may come from unknown dubious sources that may later lead to a conflict of interest. Individual candidates are limited to spend no more than £3,500 of their own money. Therefore, it is vital for candidates to have the party machine and the party finances to help out their candidacies. Until 1998, they were no limits on spending by national party organizations but following the cash for questions scandals (see textbook). Neill report is made several recommendations, including the creation of a public register in which all contributions to an MP of £5,000 or more should be recorded and all anonymous donations of £50 (£50,000 ?) or more would be banned. But also the new report recommends up £20 million cap (plafond) on party campaign funding. It also recommends that states funding should be introduced to help small parties (but it is not yet applied).
The powers and limits of the Prime Minister in Britain The majority of those powers have passed into the hands of the PM. The powers afforded by the royal prerogatives have over the centuries gradually passed into the hands of the PM and the Cabinet. However, the latter has also seen its powers and influence reduced with time. Indeed the PM is now the dominant figue in British politics even though his/her official fonctions is that of head of government. And within the Cabinet, s/he supposedely is primes inter pares (first among equals). In reality, s/he is the dominant decision-making figure and virtually all of the powers previously bestowed upon the Monarch are now held by the Premier. The PM is not elected directly to the post of PM, but rather selected indirectly. Normally, the leader of the party with the largest majority in the House of Commons is appointed to the post by the Monarch and invited to form a government. On this question, controversy remains however as to whether the Monarch dos in fact have real powers as s/he appoints the PM and dissolves parliament. Some experts argue that this is undemocratic and ________________________ could be open to -3-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 refuse if some people (ex : extremists) were to succeed to the throne. For example, in the case of a hung parliament, that’s one where there is no majority following an election. The Monarch could exercise his/her own direction and appoints the PM of his/her own personal preference, thus influencing the make-up of the government. In the same way, should a minority government decide to call an early election in order to strengthen its position in Parliament ; the Monarch could refuse and call on the leader of another party to form a government. Any decision would prove highly controversial and probably lead to a constitutional crisis (one which the monarch would probably loose with).
Powers of the PM Most of the powers enjoyed by the PM are the result of customs or the royal prerogatives. Managerial powers : as head of the government, s/he chairs the meetings of the Cabinet and decides on the Cabinet agenda and timetable (what will be discussed and when). The PM could also create new ministerial departments or remove other departments. Although ministers are officially appointed by the monarch, they are in fact chosen by the PM, who can also dismiss them in a Cabinet reshuffle. Thus the PM is supreme in Cabinet and government. In electoral terms, the PM has a major advantage over his/her opponents : in reality, it’s s/he who decides the date of the election. Normally s/he will formally request the monarch’s commission to dissolve Parliament (it’s a formality as even though the monarch may refuse such a request, but such a refusal will be unprecedented). S/he chooses when to go to the polls, normally to a time favorable to his/her party, or some events have raised the prestige of PM (ex : Thatcher in 1983, who became appreciated thanks to the Falklands factor). Before sending troops, s/he was the less popular. Since the Falklands factor, she became the most popular. Alternatively, a Premier may call an election early in the hope of winning reelection even with the smaller majority, before a crisis occurs. A 3 rd possibility is that a PM decide to stay in power for as long as possible (5years) so that the government’s economic or political functions or the popularity may improve (ex : in 1992, John Major won the majority, but it didn’t work in 1997 [financial difficulties] : landslide victory of New Labor of Tony Blair. Theoretically, there is no limit to the number of terms of office that a PM may serve. In practical terms, this depends on certain consideration. S/he needs to keep the support of his/her ministerial colleges as well as the support of the parliamentary party, as well as the support of Parliament and the support of the country. Example of 2 of the longest serving PMs in history ; Thatcher (11 ½ years) and Blair (10 years but his position became more and more precarious at the end as criticisms and opposition within his party grew). Thatcher lost her post when several Cabinet ministers and many conservative MPs refused to support her in a leadership challenge in 1990. The PM is the head of the Civil Service and has been since 1968. S/he effectively is the head of the armed forces. The PM has powers to promote and pass legislation. The PM attends all European Union meetings with the Foreign Secretary and negotiates all treaties and agreements with Britain’s allies (NATO, UNO…). Therefore, s/he has a predominant role in foreign affairs and foreign relations. The Cabinet = the main initiator of legislation. Therefore, the PM plays a considerable role in this legislative process. This situation is becoming controversial. Several observers argue that the PM has accumulated so much powers that it’s to the detriment of Cabinet and Cabinet government. The very nature of British government is seen as a “Prime Ministerial” form of government (ex : Thatcher/Blair have dominated politics to -4-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 such an extent, ignoring conventions of Cabinet, relying more and more in coteries, on their personal advisers, that a presidential style of government has been seen to have develop.
Limits When choosing members of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister must not overlook the talents and ambitions of his/her most competent colleges, nor should s/he neglect to balance the different tendencies within the party. It’s necessary to satisfy major rivals who otherwise might prove to be a source of difficulty if they are cut off of the government. The PM must keep aware of party feeling or policy questions as the support of his/her PMs is essential for a PM to remain in office. The example of Thatcher and Blair highlighted this point. Mrs. Thatcher’s insistence on imposing the very unpopular poll act as well as her hard-lined stance on Europe to gather with the very personalized style of government … all this insulted her from many MPs within her party and certain Cabinet colleges who refused to support her in a leadership challenge (1950) as they saw that she has become an electoral liability, so she was forced to resign. Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq + subsequent backbench rebellions during vote in Parliament ; for example student fees and education in the House of Commons and the cash for coronets scandal and Cabinet reshuffle following ministerial mistakes and scandals so his position and authority particularly weaken as calls for his resignation by MPs and the press grew louder. Indeed, like Mrs. Thatcher before him, he was no longer considered as an electoral asset (resigned in summer 2007 because of this pressure).
Checks and balances Under the British system of government, we can’t say that any formal system of checks and balances exists. However, such a restrain on executive power do exist. The PM, as well as Cabinet ministers and government ministers, is accountable to the Parliament and to the people, notably for their acts but also for their department. If a crisis / scandal should arise in a ministry, the minister at its head is automatically responsible, and depending on how serious the crisis / scandal may be, s/he may be called upon to resign (Ex: John Profumo). In the case of the PM, s/he is accountable directly for all government actions and policies. Once a week in a Wednesday afternoon, a 30-minute session of questions and answers takes place in the House of Commons = PM questions. This is an important form of calling on the minister. The leader of the opposition and other opposition leaders will call on the PM to explain or justify any government policy, decision or any act taken by the government. Normally, a first question is asked and then supplementary questions. The PM does not know what is going to be asked. However, the PM and his/her advisers will spend a very long time on morning checking who will ask questions (interests of the persons, recent events…) in order to anticipate his/her answers. The PM HAS TO answer the questions. This is not just a question of accountability, it’s more : it’s a way for the opposition and Parliament to have some oversight in terms of the government to ensure that it’s acting responsibly and not abusing its position of power. In the same way, individual ministers will face question times. For example, when we have legislation being introduced, perhaps he will be asked on this legislation. 2005 : Charles Clarke (Home Secretary under Blair)
-5-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 was pressured in Parliament to explain the release and disappearance in the previous few years of nearly 3,000 offenders awaiting deportation : he faced strong questionings in Parliament and, in the end, resigns. Some created crimes : rape, murder, robbery… In recent or other recent examples however, other ministers under Blair have not resigned. Ex : Patricia Hewitt (Health Secretary) stood in office (medical budget crisis). Deputy PM John Prescott, also Minister for Environmental Affairs had an affair with a secretary (=> scandal) but stood in place. MPs may present written or oral questions to ministers or the PM. However, the PM/minister are expected to answer these questions.
Vote of no confidence : the government, when it’s formed and to stay in power, must enjoy the confidence of the House. If a government loses a vote very often, a vote of no confidence is called by the opposition. Generally, politicians in the government party don’t vote against the party. However, this is a way for the opposition to test the government : if a government loses a vote of no confidence, Parliament is dissolved, MP resign and a new election is called. Ex : in 1959, James Callaghan lost a division of vote and legislation to grant devolution (= autonomy) to Scotland and Wales by a 311-310 majority (only 1 vote more). Mrs. Thatcher immediately called for a vote of no confidence. He resigned, requested the dissolution of Parliament and a new general election was called. So, this question of vote of no confidence can bring a government down. The vote of no confidence is a limit to any excessive power to the PM. There is also a vote of confidence.
Executive and legislative The PM and Cabinet are all members of Parliament elected to a seat in the House of Commons (HC) with a small number of peers occupying government’s posts. We can say that this executive branch of power plays a preponderant role in the legislature. Over 90% of all public bills are initiated and proposed by the government, thus making the PM and his/her Cabinet colleagues the principal initiators of legislation. Although it’s very rare for a PM to introduce formally legislation to Parliament, s/he plays a dominant role in the decision whether to propose a bill or not and influence a great deal the content of all major government’s bills agreed to in Cabinet. However, once a bill is introduced in the House, the PM will use his/her powers of persuasion through the whipping system and his own patronage to ensure the successful passage of the legislation. Whips ensure party discipline during divisions (= a vote in the Cabinet on a bill) as they enforce any decision imposed upon MPs by the leadership. They also provide a channel of communication between the party leader and party members MPs, especially backbencher (= MP who is in a party but not part of the government). Whips will reform the leader of the feelings among party MPs on all policy questions, once it’s vital for a party leader to make sure that a backbench rebellion does not occur, in which a number of MPs may go against a party whip and vote against government legislation or in favor of opposition legislation or amendments. Such accordance could see the defeat of an important but perhaps controversial government bill or at least result o, a reduced majority in favor of it. To a certain extent, the latter scenario is not too damaging for the government with a large majority as it was the case for Blair from 1997 to 2001 and from 2001 to 2005. However, it could be seen as a sign of a weakening of the PM’s -6-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 power. In the case of a government with a smaller majority, such a rebellion could be disastrous for the government(s legislative agenda and could even prove fatal for the government or the PM as a vote of no confidence will most likely follow such a reversal. The government must win this vote of no confidence if it’s to stay in power (ex : Thatcher / James Callaghan). Government sponsored legislation is generally introduced and backed in the House through its various stages by the ministers whose department is in charge of that particular policy area. S/he will give the first reading of a bill to the House and subsequently chair the standing committees appointed following its second reading to debate the contents of the legislation as well as any proposed amendment (cf. the legislative process). Legislation covering finance or taxation are introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or other ministers of the Treasury), legislation on immigration / crime are introduced by the Home Secretary of a minister from the Home Office : they will be responsible for the legislation to the legislative process. As MPs, the PM and ministers take part in particular debated and votes or parliamentary divisions, they will be called into account for the actions and decisions of the government or by their departments during ministerial questions in the House. As we’ve seen, PM’s questions involve a 30-minute session questions to the PM over government policies and actions and national problems every Wednesday afternoon while Parliament is sitting. This presence of opposition parties give the opportunity to call the executive to account for its decisions and actions before Parliament and this often is seen as heated exchanges between the Premier and opposition leaders and backbenchers. The executive has tremendous control over precious parliamentary debating time, as it’s the leader of the House, a Cabinet minister, who in consultation with opposition leaders decides how much time shall be devoted to specific debates. This is done at the beginning of each week when Parliament is in session and it allows the executive to set the legislative agenda. Obviously, this power will, as much as possible, be used in the government’s favor. The monarch is part of the executive. The monarch’s role in the legislative process is threefold: every year, at the state opening of Parliament, the monarch convenes or reconvenes Parliament and gives the speech from the Throne, more commonly referred to as the Queen’s speech. It lays out the government’s intending legislative program for the coming session of Parliament. The monarch has the power to dissolve Parliament on the request of the PM. This is a formality (or is seen as such) and though it constitutes a real power that could be abused in the wrong hands, the monarch would have to present very strong arguments to justify any decision to refuse to grant a dissolution. In terms of the passage of a piece of legislation, once a bill has been passed by the HC and the HL, it’s presented to the monarch for the royal assent, which is a formality (“La Reyne le veult"). Legislation that receives the Royal Assent thus becomes an Act of Parliament. In theory, the monarch has a power of veto over all legislation as s/he can refuse to give the Royal Assent to any piece of legislation passed by Parliament. However, in practice, s/he has no real power of veto : the last time that such a refusal was made was in 1709 (Queen Ann) => importance of precedent. Therefore, to use Bagehot’s terms, the efficient part of the executive that is the PM and the Cabinet, enjoy considerable influence within the legislative in terms of legislation that is passed, the time allocated to debate on specific matters and the legislation and to a logic stance, if they have a large working majority and efficient whips, they can be reasonably sure that their legislation will pass. However, they’ll wish to
-7-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 avoid a backbench rebellion in order to ensure the passage of legislation and guarantee party support if they want to win any subsequent vote of no confidence. A government must have the confidence of Parliament if it’s to stay in power. Also, the PM and Cabinet ministers are called to account for all government actions and decisions during question time, and if the opposition is not satisfied, a vote of no confidence will may be called. It’s not in the interest of MPs to vote against the government.
The legislative process How a bill becomes a law ? 1) The initial idea : a piece of legislation comes from different sources 2) Elections manifestos 3) Government department 4) Interest groups 5) Research organization 6) consumer groups 7) European legislation that has to be incorporated into British law
The Cabinet defines what will be proposed in forthcoming session of Parliament. A government will introduce on average between 15 and 20 major public bills in each sesion of parliament. Cabinet's choice of what legislation will be introduced is governed by several factors, e.g. The need to balance manifesto pledges... Proposals will be presented in a document called a « green paper », which is not necessarly a definitive legislative declaration. The Cabinet may also define very clearly its legislative intention in a document called « white paper ». A green paper may be published and then followed by a white paper but not always. Both may be debated in Parliament before the government actually decides to introduce the legislation. The ministers responsible for a bill will work with the civil servants in his/her department along with the parliamentary councel (a team of government lawyers, to draft its content. They will consult experts, other politicians and groups directly concerned by the proposed legislation. When they have finalized the wording of the bill and received the approval of the Cabinet. The bill is ready to be introduced into Parliament, where it will debate its content and propose amendments and finally vote. The first stage of this process is the first reading => this is a purely formal introduction (sponsoring the legislation, no vote or debate is held at this stage and the bill is then published. During the second reading, a general debate on the principles and scopes of the bill is held. Along with his/her shadow counterpart open and close the debate during which MP's expertise the subject on the discussion (those who the constituencies are concerned). If the bill proves to be in any way controversial, a vote will be held but it's very rare for a government bill to be defeated in a division at its second reading. This is because MPs in the majority party are unwilling to vote against it. The third stage is called committee stage, when especially appointed standing committees 18 à 25 MPs examine the bill. -8-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 Membership of such committees is based on party strenght in the house and includes the minister as well as his/her shadow counterpart and a party whip from each party. Members will be MPs who are seen to have same expertise or interest in the specific policy area being discussed. These committees will examine the clauses of the bill and any amendment proposed but it will not examine its purpose. All committee members may table amendments and the government may well accept technical amendments that improve the bill and it may see opposition points as constructive but it's relatively rare for a government to accept major changes proposed by the opposition. Such changes only occur if the government's backbenchers disagree with the government and support amendments tabled by opposition members. In the case of the finance bill important constitutional legislation or a bill that needs to be passed urgently, this committee stage can be taken on the floor of the ouse in what we call a committee in the chole house in order to save time. When the committee stage is over, the legislation will pass onto the report stage or the consideration, this involves a detailled examination of the bill amended and passed by committees. All MPs take part in this debate, during which amendments and new clauses can be introduced and debated and voted. There is no report stage if no amendment had been made at the community stage. The bill then goes back to the floor for the thirs reading which often takes place immediately after the report stage. This third reading is the final debate of the content of the amended bill and is usually short. A division is held afterwards on the bill, whereby file through the « Ayes » lobby if they support the legislation or the « Noes » lobby if they oppose it. They go through doors and are counting by tellers. If the measure is passed, it moves on the HL, where it goes through, more or less, the same process. In the Lords, there is a formal introduction in the first reading, followed by a second reading, that involves a general debate. Then detailled discussions are held on the precise content of the measure in committee which can propose amendment. Finally, a third reading involving a final debate takes place. The difference between the process in the HC / HL = there is no committee stage (= standing committee) in the HL. In the HL. All members may take part in the committee deliberation and propose amendment. If a bill is accepted in the HL, it's immediately sent to the monarch for the Royal Assent. If any amendment had been made, the bill is sent back to the HC which will debate the amendment made by the Lords. The Commons may accept, replace or reject it. This amending bill will be sent back to the Lords together with a statement explaining why it had been accepted, amended and rejected. Normally, the Lords accept the bill at this stage, thus acknowledging the proeminence of the Commons. However, occasions do arrive when the Lords may insist on maintaining the amendments proposed there, and the bill will be passed between the 2 houses until an agreement is reached. If no such agreement is reached, the bill fails (but very rare). Not forget the impact of the Parliament Act of 1911 / 1949 (veto power). A bill passed by Parliament will be sent to the Monarch for the Royal Assent. Thus the bill becomes an Act of Parliament and part of the law of the land.
The different types of legislation There are essentially 5 : 1) Public bills : These make up the majority of bills passing by Parliament. Most of which are government bill introduced by a government minister. Public bills affect the whole of society generally or are the result of -9-
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 an unforseen. Examples : prevention of terrorism (temporary measures) Act of 1974 passed after a series of IRA bombings ; firearms Act of 1998 which was passed following the Dunblane school shooting 1996. 2) Private member's bill : process of legislation introduced by backbench MP who believe that a particular issue is strong and fell the ned for reform. There are 3 ways in which MPs can introduce such legislation : 1. ballot bills whereby at the beginning of every session of Parliament, a ballot of MPs' names (who want to introduce a private member's bill) is held ; 20 are selected to present their bill, 12 Fridays are set aside for debate of their bills during the parliamentary session. However, parliamentary time is so precious that if time is lost during debate on government legislation, then some of this time allocated on Friday will be given to consideration of government legislation. Another problem is that few MPs are present on a Friday (live far from London, take care of their constituencies) 2. 10-minute bills, chich can be introduced under the 10-minute rule. It allows an MP to introduce legislation. S/he is given 10 minutes to do so. If at the end of 10 minutes they have not finish their introduction, the bill fails. So what's the interest ? The point is that 10-minute bills are usually designed to have legislation passed. The aim is to debate certain issues which don't necessarily need to have been debated. 3. Standing-order 58 allows an MP to introduce legislation provided that s/he has given the speakers at least one day's notice (ils préviennent à l'avance). Once again, many of these bills fail but this doesn't mean that all Private Bills fail. Ex : in the 1960s, the Labour government gave government parliamentary time for MPs sponsoring a measure of social reforms : the government doesn't want to introduce them itself so it gives its own parliamentary time to the debate of this bill. The 3 main are : legalizing abortion / discriminazing homosexuality / easier procedure of divorce. 3)
Money bill = the budget or bills on taxation. These are government bills and will only be voted on in a division in the HC.
4) Private bill : can be proposed by an indivudual or an organization such as a company or a local authority which seeks special powers, usually local powers. They have only a local impact or concerns one particular industry... They are presented following a petition and have become very limited since the 1992 transport and works act. 5) Hybrid bill are bills introduced either by a backbench MP or a minister and which have the characteristic and procedure of both public and private bills. They affect the interest of certain organizations ans are very rare. Statutory instruments : charges and additions may be made to laws which don't require changing the whole law. If we don't want to change all the content of an Act of Parliament, the government use statutory instruments. Such pieces of legislation are examined by the committee of statutory instruments which is made of 14 members ( 7HC / 7 HL).
Whipping system : central role in the legislative process. The government in opposition parties will COME ?? a - 10 -
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 disciplinary system governing the way MPs belonging to a party actually vote in parliamentary divisions. This sytem is enforced by party whips. 2 levels : 1. party leaders will decide whether to ensure total party loyalty in a division or to allow MPs to vote as they wish (a free vote will be given). Otherwise, there are 3 forms of whips : 1. one-line whips : MPs are requested to attend Parliament to vote on a motion or legislation 2. two-line whips : MPs must attend a division and vote according to their party's line and less they can pair up with an opposition MP. Both will be absent during the cote of the division (no difference in terms of the vote) = pairing 3. three-line whips : you have to vote for the party line or you will suffer from disciplinary consequences = you will never become a minister. Whips are a channel of communication between backbenchers and the party leadership. They'll regularly meet up to discuss their opinions.
Political parties in the UK Britain has a two-party system, that means that 2 parties dominate politics : the Labour (Party) and the Conservatives (the Tories).
1) Nature of the two parties Ever since the Bill of Right of 1689 established parliamentary monarchy and since electoral reforms extended parliamentary representation in the 19th and early 20th century, power has always alternated between the 2 main parties : the Whigs and the Tories in the 18th and early 19th century, the Conservatives and the Liberals from from the mid-19th century to the 1920s, and since then, the Conservatives and the Labour. The replacement of the Liberal Partyby the Labour Party as the second party of government came in 1924 when the first Labour government was formed (minority). However, the Liberal party has maintained some significance. The Conservative Party has evolved in many ways since the 18th century but it still remains the party of the Establishment characterized by paternalism and a business-oriented policy. Thanks to the recent success of the Liberal Democrats, some experts now speak about a « two-and-a-half system ». Given the nature of the electoral system despite the increase in the vote won by the LibDem (46 LibDem returned to Parliament in 2001, in 2005 they were 62 with 20% of the national vote), despite this success, it's highly unlikely that a 3rd party could form a government in the future unless some radical reforms of the system were to occur.
2) Evolution There were 3 main developments of the Conservative Party sunce the mid-19th century, where it split over the question of free trade and protectionism in the form of the Corn Laws. From the 1860s, the defining position of the
- 11 -
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 Conservative Party under their charismatice leader Benjamin Disraeli was « one nation conservatism » (idea of the party was a party of all the people and where rich people interests were defended). Conservatism has a duty to help in a paternalistic way those who can't help themselves guaranting employment, welfare benefits to the poor. However, at the same time, self initiative and endeavour were encouraged and dependency upon the state was frowned upon. From 1974, M. Thatcher rejected this branch of conservatism favouring cuts in state welfare spending, monitorist financial policy, low taxation, privatisation of industries and Law and Order, thus moving the party to the right. However, despite this move to the right as the Conservative Party is a broad church (= many believes, many tendencies) made up of thatcherists (sceptik), right-wing conservatives, liberally-minded (belief in social equality). The basic ideas that unite all Conservatives are a capitalist economy, free entreprise and private ownership.
The Labour Party was born out an alliance between trade unionists, socialists and left-wing intellectuals called Fabians + social democrats. At the end of the 19th century, they founded the Independent Labour Party (ILP) to represent working class people's interests. This party became the Labour Representation Committee (1899) before being renamed the Labour Party in 1906 when it had 29 MPs elected in Westminster. For much of the 20 th century, it was the party of nationalisation, a socialist reform of society and a welfare state looking after all British citizens for the cradle to the grave. Following the electoral defeat of 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, the party initiated several internal reforms to try o make it more attractive to the electorate, moving to the center-left and away from its traditionnal leftroots. The 1994 election of Tony Blair as party leader completed this process. With the party position, very much to the center, some say that Blair ware more to the right than the rest of his party. The Labour Party is also a broad church made up socialists, social-democrats, trade unionists, left-wing intellectuals. However, under Blair and Brown, New Labour has sought to become a more business-friendly pro-Europe, yet socially progressive, party, that would appeal to middle-class voters as well as its traditional working class and public sector supporters. The basic idea that unite Labour members is a notion of social progress and social equality backed up by a welfare state.
The LibDem Party is a result of a merger between the Liberal party and the Social-Democratic Party (= the SocialDemocrats), a party created in 1981 by a group of former Labour ministers opposed to what they saw as the party moved to the extreme-left. The 2 parties formed an electoral alliance in 1983 and 1987 general elections and in 1988 they merged to form one party, the SDLP, which within 2 years was renamed the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party). It is seen as being to the center and center left. In the UK, political parties have the rôle of organizing and mobilizing sections of the population around a specific programm and coherent positions on issues corresponding the interests of party members and supplies. Party membership has continued to decline in the last 30-40 years, this doesn't mean that political parties are any less important. There are still very much at the heart of British politicians, and this is a dimension that reinforces British democracy : not only do political parties select leaders and representatives, but they also canvass and campaigns for party candidates but they also raise party funds. 6 - 12 -
Civilisation britannique – L2 Semestre 2 main functions : a governing role, an electional role, a representative role, a policy-making role, recruitement and participation, a communication and ideological role. Parties elect their leader, and if they win a majority of seas in the HC, s/he will become PM. Parties have a key rôle in terms of the choice of the national leader and indirectly, the government.
Selection / Election The Labour Party leader has always been elected. It was the parliamentary Labour Party which did this. In 1981, a reform of this system set up an electoral college, 40% of those went to the affiliated party association (trade union, socialist groups), 30% parliamentary Labour Party, 30% to constituency labour parties (CLP) = the parties at grassroots levels. In 1993, this was reformed. Now, 3 equal sets of vote : the 3 parties have 1/3 of the votes. OMOV = one man, one vote : we no longer have a « block vote » (= union leader vote for all). Now every single person has 1 vote (same value).
The Conservatives : Up until the 1960s, leader of party emerged. Following consultation among a « magic circle » (the leaders and the wise decide who should be the best leader. This changed in 1965 : the conservative MPs elected their leader in a maximum of 3 rounds (if 1 person has a majority at the end, it's OK). In 1975 and 1991, there were reforms to change the system. If one person has one considerable vote but not majority party, it's OK. The most recent reform took place in 1998 : if there were more than 2 candidates, the first ballot of MPs and second ballot of all party members. However, if there were 2 candidates => one ballot of party members. The LibDem employ a postal (custal ?) ballot system ; based on the simple transfereable system. This is held every 2 years after a general election. Also, if a majority of LibDem MPs of 75 local party call for a leadership election, then a leadership election must be held. In each party, constituency parties select their candidates for general and byelection and seem to enjoy a certain amount of independence. However, in recent years, the central leadership of the Labour Party have been accused of imposing their choices of constituencies, being said too coerced into selecting candidates for the party leadership.
Question of fundings Membership has declined dramatically : 2,5 million members in the 1950s. There was a considerable decline in finance ; far less money. Another factor is that the Labour Party received 66% of its funding of Trade Union (subscription fees). Both parties fund themselves. However, contribution are limited and all contributions must be recorded (all MPs and parties must declare excatly how many they received). Cash-for-coronates = giving money to the parties (loans) hoping to get a title to the peers. Problem : they don't need to be declared. Other problem, many of these loans were made 0% interest (illegal) => problem for transparency and democracy. Now, there are major reforms to have all fundings recorded.
- 13 -
