Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






Caledonia, Cambria and Hibemia 7 page

The lack of enthusiasm for politicians may be seen in the fact that surveys have shown a general ignorance of who they are. More than half of the adults in Britain do not know the name of their local Member of Parliament (MP), even though there is just one of these for each area, and quite a high proportion do not even know the names of the important government ministers or leaders of the major political parties.


68 6 Political life


> The killer instinct In this extract from Yes, Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has just resigned. There are two candidates to be the new Prime Minister, Eric Jeffries and Duncan Short, both of them minis­ters in the present government. Another minister, Jim Hacker, also wants the job. He has recently learnt some scandalous information about events in the pasts of the other two candidates, so now he has the oppor­tunity to make them withdraw. Here is an extract from his diary.

I told Duncan that some information had come my way. Serious information. To do with his personal financial operations. I referred to the collapse of Continental and General. He argued that there was nothing improper about that. I replied that technically there wasn't, but if you looked at it in conjunction with a similar case at Offshore Securities ... I indicated that, if he stayedin therunning for PM[, I would be obliged to share my knowledge with senior members of the party, the Fraud Squad, and so forth. The Americans would also have to know. And Her Majesty... He panicked. 'Hang on! Financial matters can be misinterpreted.' I sipped my drink and waited. It didn't take long. He said that he didn't really want Number Ten2 at all. He felt that the Foreign Office was a much better job in many ways. 'But I won't support Eric!' he insisted body. 'How would it be if you transferred all your support to someone else?' I suggested. Duncan looked blank. 'Who?' 'Someone who recognized your qualities. Someone who'd want you to stay on as Foreign Secretary. Someone who would be discreet about Continental and General. Someone you trust.' Gradually, I saw it dawning upon him. 'Do you mean—you?'he asked. I pretended surprise. 'Me? I have absolutely no ambitions in that direction.' 'You do mean you,' he observed quietly. He knows the code. * I told Eric what I knew. He went pale. 'But you said you were going to help me get elected Prime Minister.' I pointed out that my offer to help him was before my knowledge of the shady lady from Argentina. And others. 'Look, Eric, as party Chair­man I have my duty. It would be a disaster for the party if you were PM and it came out. I mean, I wouldn't care to explain your private life to Her Majesty, would you?' 'I'll withdraw,' he muttered. I told him reassuringly that I would say no more about it. To anyone. He thanked me nastily and snarled that he supposed that bloody Duncan would now get Number Ten. 'Not if I can help it,' I told him. 'Who then?' I raised my glass to him, smiled and said, 'Cheers.' The penny dropped3. So did his lower jaw. 'You don't mean — you?' Again I put on my surprised face. 'Me?' I said innocently. 'Our chil­dren are approaching the age when Annie and I are thinking of spending much more time with each other.' He understood perfectly. 'You domean you.' Adapted from Yes, Prime Minister by Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay. ' PM is short for "Prime Minister'. 2 Number Ten Downing Street is where the Prime Minister lives. 3 He finally understood (that Hacker intended to be PM).

 




The style of democracy 69


The British were not always so unenthusiastic. In centuries past, it was a maxim of gentlemen's clubs that nobody should mention polit­ics or religion in polite conversation. If anybody did, there was a danger that the conversation would become too heated, people would become bad-tempered and perhaps violent. However, there has been no real possibility of a revolution or even of a radical change in the style of government for almost two centuries now. This stability is now generally taken for granted. Most people rarely see any reason to become passionate about politics and nobody regards it as a 'dan­gerous' topic of conversation. They are more likely to regard it as a boring topic of conversation! However, this lack of enthusiasm is not the same as complete disenchantment. Three-quarters of the adult population are interested enough in politics to vote at national elec­tions, even though voting is not compulsory. There is a general feeling of confidence in the stability and workability of the system. Yes, Prime Minister is just one of many programmes and publications devoted to political satire. All of them are consistently and bitingly critical. Moreover, their criticism is typically not about particular policies but is directed at the attitudes of politicians, their alleged dishonesty and disloyalty, and at the general style of political life (> Figures of fun). Given this, you might think that people would be very angry, that there would be loud demands that the system be cleaned up, even public demonstrations. Not at all! The last demon­strations about such matters took place 150 years ago. You might also think that the politicians themselves would be worried about the negative picture that these satires paint of them. Far from it! On the back cover of the 1989 edition of Yes, Prime Minister there is a tribute from Margaret Thatcher, the real Prime Minister of the country throughout the 198os. In it, she refers to the book's 'closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power' (suggesting it is accurate) and how this portrayal has given her 'hours of pure joy’. In Britain it is generally accepted that politics is a dirty business, a necessary evil. Therefore, politicians make sure that they do not appear too keen to do the job. They see themselves as being politicians out of a sense of public duty. That is why, in the extract, Jim Hacker does not admit that he actually wants to be Prime Minister. Eric and Duncan, and Jim himself, all know and accept that to be the Prime Minister is the ultimate goal of most politicians. But for Jim Hacker to admit this openly, even in private conversation, would make him seem danger­ously keen on power for its own sake. The style of democracy The British are said to have a high respect for the law. Although they may not have much respect for the present institutions of the law (see chapter 11), this reputation is more or less true with respect to the principle of law. Of course, lots of crimes are committed, as in any other country, but there is little systematic law-breaking by large

> Collectors'items? An indication of the poor reputation of politicians in Britain is the value of their signatures. Autographs can sometimes be worth quite a lot of money — but not those of most poli­ticians. Even those of Prime Ministers are not very valuable. In 1992 the signature of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister through­out the 1980s, was worth £75 if accompanied by a photograph; the signature of John Major, Prime Min­ister at the time, was worth £20; those of other recent Prime Minis­ters were worth even less. The one exception was Winston Churchill. His signed photograph was said to be worth £ 1,000. > Figures of fun Spitting Image was an example of tele­vision satire. It was a programme which showed puppets of well-known public figures speaking in fictional situations in order to make fun of them. Note that the figures were not naturalistic. Instead, they were more like cartoons, grot­esquely emphasizing certain features. The Spitting Image format was copied in other European countries.


The 'Spitting Image' puppet of Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister 1979—91)

 


70 6 Political life


>Official secrets In 1992 the existence ofMI6, the British Secret Serviice, was publicly admitted by the government for the first time. Nobody was surprised. Everybody already knew that there was a secret service, and that its name was MI 6. But the admission itself was a surprise. British govern­ments do not like public revelations of their activities, even if these are no longer secret. (In this case, the reason for the new openness was that, with the cold war over, MI6 had to start justifying why it needed money from taxpayers.) For years during the 1 980s, for instance, the government success­fully prevented the publication in Britain of the book Spycatcher (the memoirs of an MI6 agent) even though, by the end of the decade, it had already been published in several other countries and could therefore not contain any genuine secrets. Eventually, in 1991, the European Court ruled that publica­tion should be allowed in Britain too.

sections of the population. For example, tax evasion is not the national pastime that it is said to be in some countries. However, while 'the law' as a concept is largely respected, the British are comparatively unenthusiastic about making new laws. The general feeling is that, while you have to have laws sometimes, wherever possible it is best to do without them. In many aspects of life the country has comparatively few rules and regulations. This lack of regulation works both ways. Just as there are comparatively few rules telling the individual what he or she must or must not do, so there are comparatively few rules telling the government what it can or cannot do. Two unique aspects of British life will make this clear. First, Britain is one of the very few European countries whose citizens do not have identity cards. Before the 1970s, when tourism to foreign countries became popular (and so the holding of passports became more common), most people in the country went through life without ever owning a document whose main purpose was to identify them. British people are not obliged to carry identification with them. You do not even have to have your driving licence with you in your car. If the police ask to see it, you have twenty-four hours to take it to them! Second, and on the other hand, Britain (unlike some other coun­tries in western Europe) does not have a Freedom of Information Act. There is no law which obliges a government authority or agency to show you what information it has collected about you. In fact, it goes further than that. There is a law (called the Official Secrets Act) which obliges many government employees not to tell anyone about the details of their work. It seems that in Britain, both your own identity and the information which the government has about your identity are regarded as, in a sense, private matters. These two aspects are characteristic of the relationship in Britain between the individual and the state. To a large degree, the traditional assumption is that both should leave each other alone as much as possible. The duties of the individual towards the state are confined to not breaking the law and paying taxes. There is no national service (military or otherwise); people are not obliged to vote at elections if they can't be bothered; people do not have to register their change of address with any government authority when they move house. Similarly, the government in Britain has a comparatively free hand. It would be correct to call the country 'a democracy' in the generally accepted sense of this word. But in Britain this democracy involves less participation by ordinary citizens in governing and lawmaking than it does in many other countries. There is no concept of these things being done 'by the people'. If the government wants to make an important change in the way that the country is run — to change, for example, the electoral system or the powers of the Prime Minis­ter - it does not have to ask the people. It does not even have to have


The constitution 71

 

a special vote in Parliament with an especially high proportion of MPs in favour. It just needs to get Parliament to agree in the same way as for any new law (see chapter 9).

In many countries an important constitutional change cannot be made without a referendum in -which everybody in the country has the chance to vote 'yes' or 'no'. In other countries, such as the USA, people often have the chance to vote on particular proposals for changing laws that directly affect their everyday life, on smoking in public places or the location of a new hospital, for example. Nothing like this happens in Britain. There has only been one countrywide referendum in British history (in 1975 ,on whether the country should stay in the European Community). In Britain democracy has never meant that the people have a hand Tin the running of the country; rather it means that the people choose who is to govern the country, and then let them get on with it!

The constitution

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That means it is a country gov­erned by a king or queen who accepts the advice of a parliament. It is also a parliamentary democracy. That is, it is a country whose government is controlled by a parliament which has been elected by the people. In other words, the basic system is not so different from anywhere else in Europe. The highest positions in the government are filled by members of the directly elected parliament. In Britain, as in many European countries, the official head of state, whether a monarch (as in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark) or a presid­ent (as in Germany, Greece and Italy) has little real power.

However, there are features of the British system of government which make it different from that in other countries and which are not 'modern' at all. The most notable of these is the question of the constitution. Britain is almost alone among modern states in that it does not have 'a constitution' at all. Of course, there are rules, regula­tions, principles and procedures for the running of the country — all the things that political scientists and legal experts study and which are known collectively as 'the constitution'. But there is no single written document which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land and the final arbiter in any matter of dispute. Nobody can refer to 'article 6' or 'the first amendment' or anything like that, because nothing like that exists.

Instead, the principles and procedures by which the country is governed and from which people's rights are derived come from a number of different sources. They have been built up, bit by bit, over the centuries. Some of them are written down in laws agreed by Parliament, some of them have been spoken and then written down (judgements made in a court) and some of them have never been written down at all. For example, there is no written law in Britain that says anything about who can be the Prime Minister or what the


72 6 Political life


>The pairing system The pairing system is an excellent example of the habit of co-opera­tion among political parties in Britain. Under this system, an MP of one party is 'paired' with an MP of another party. When there is going to be a vote in the House of Commons, and the two MPs know that they would vote on opposite sides, neither of them bother to turn up for the vote. In this way, the dif­ference in numbers between one side and the other is maintained, while the MPs are free to get on with other work. The system works very well. There is hardly ever any 'cheating'.

powers of the Prime Minister are, even though he or she is probably the most powerful person in the country. Similarly, there is no single written document which asserts people's rights. Some rights which are commonly accepted in modern democracies (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex or race) have been formally recognized by Parliament through legislation; but others (for example, the rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion or political views) have not. Nevertheless, it is understood that these latter rights are also part of the constitution. The style of politics Despite recent changes such as the televising of Parliament, political life in Britain is still influenced by the traditional British respect for privacy and love of secrecy. It is also comparatively informal. In both Parliament and government there is a tendency for important decisions to be taken, not at official public meetings, or even at pre­arranged private meetings, but at lunch, or over drinks, or in chance encounters in the corridors of power. It used to be said that the House of Commons was 'the most exclusive club in London'. And indeed, there are many features of Parliament which cause its members (MPs) to feel special and to feel a special sense of belonging with each other, even among those who have radically opposed political philo­sophies. First, constitutional theory says that Parliament has absolute control over its own affairs and is, in fact, the highest power in the land. Second, there are the ancient traditions of procedure (see chapter 9). Many of these serve to remind MPs of a time when the main division in politics was not between this party and that party but rather between Parliament itself and the monarch. Even the archi­tecture of the Palace of Westminster (the home of both Houses of Parliament) contributes to this feeling. It is so confusing that only 'insiders' can possibly find their way around it. These features, together with the long years of political stability, have led to a genuine habit of co-operation among politicians of different parties. When you hear politicians arguing in the House of Commons or in a television studio, you might think that they hate each other. This is rarely the case. Often they are good friends. And even when it is the case, both normally see the practical advantage of co-operation. The advantage is that very little time is wasted fighting about how political business is to be conducted fairly. For example, the order of business in Parliament is arranged by representatives of the parties beforehand so that enough time is given for the various points of view to be expressed. Another example is television advert­ising. By agreement, political parties are not allowed to buy time on television. Instead, each party is given a strict amount of time, with the two biggest parties getting exactly equal amounts. A very notable example is the system of 'pairing' of MPs(> The pairing system).

 


The style of politics 7 3

A guide to British political parties


 

• conservative

• History: developed from the group of

MPs known as the Tories in the early I nineteenth century (see chapter 2) and still often known informally by that name (especially in newspapers, because it takes up less space!).

• Traditional outlook: right of centre;

stands for hierarchical authority and minimal government interference in the economy; likes to reduce income mtax; gives high priority to national defence and internal law and order.

• Since 1979: aggressive reform of edu­cation, welfare, housing and many public services designed to increase | consumer-choice and/or to intro­duce "market economies' into their operation.

• Organization: leader has relatively great degree of freedom to direct policy.

• Leader (May 2002): lain Duncan Smith.

• Voters: the richer sections of society, plus a large minority of the working classes.

• Money: mostly donations from busi­ness people.


 

• History: formed at the beginning of the twentieth century from an alliance of trade unionists and intellectuals. First government in 1923.

• Traditional outlook: left of centre; stands for equality, for the weaker people in society and for more government involvement in the economy; more concerned to provide full social ser­vices than to keep income tax low.

• Since 1979: opposition to Conservat­ive reforms, although has accepted many of these by now; recently, emphasis on community ethics and looser links with trade unions (see chapter 15;).

• Oraonization: in theory, policies have to be approved by annual conference;

in practice, leader has more power than this implies.

• Leoder (May 2002): Tony Blair.

• Voters: working class, plus a small middle-class intelligentsia.

• Money: more than half from trade unions.


 

• History: formed in the late 1980s from a union of the Liberals (who developed from the Whigs of the early nineteenth century) and the Social Democrats (a breakaway group of Labour politicians).

• Policies: regarded as in the centre or slightly left of centre; has always been strongly in favour of the EU;

places more emphasis on the envir­onment than other parties; believes in giving greater powers to local government and in reform of the electoral system (see chapter 10).

• Leader (May 2002): Charles Kennedy

• Voters: from all classes, but more from the middle class.

• Money: private donations (much poorer than the big two).


Nationalist parties

Both Plaid Cymru ('party ofWales' in the Welsh language) and the SNP (Scottish National Party) fight for devolution of governmental powers. Many of their members, especially in the SNP, are willing to consider total independence from the UK. Both parties have usually had a few MPs at Westminster in the last fifty years, but well under half of the total numbers of MPs from their respective countries.


 

Parties in Northern Ireland

Parties here normally represent

either the Protestant or the Catholic communities (see chapter 4): There is one large comparatively moderate party on each side (the Protestant Ulster Unionists and the Catholic Social Democratic and Labour Party) and one or more other parties of more extreme views on each side (for example, the Protestant Democratic Unionists and the Catholic Sinn Fein). There is one party which asks for support from both communities - the Alliance party. It had not, by 2002, won any seats.


 

Other parties

There are numerous very small parties, such as the Green Party, which is sup­ported by environmentalists. There is a small party which was formerly the Communist party, and a number of other left-wing parties, and also an extreme right-wing party which is fairly openly racist (by most definitions of that word). It was previously called the National Front but since the 198os has been called the British National Party (BNP). At the time of writing, none of these parties had won a single seat in Parliament in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1993, however, the BNP briefly won a seat on a local council.


74 6 Political life


> Image matters In the age of television, the impor­tance of the personal image of a party's leader to its political success has increased greatly. Since 1960 a great change has taken place with regard to the families of top politi­cians. Before then, the British public did not even know the name of the Prime Minister's wife. These days, the wives of male party leaders are well-known to the media, and their children are often featured with them in photographs to show what loving, normal family men they are. The British scene has not, at the time of writing, reached the level of absurdity that it has in the USA where, for example, the daughter of Jimmy Carter (President 1975-79) was such a celebrity that the press once thought it worthwhile to report that she had been twelve minutes late for school!


Tony Blair with his wife and three oldest children outside Number 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the Prime Minister

The party system Britain is normally described as having a 'two-party system'. This is because, since 1945, one of the two big parties has, by itself, con­trolled the government, and members of these two parties have occupied more than 90% of all of the seats in the House of Commons. Moreover, this is not a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Basically the same situation existed throughout the nineteenth century, except that the Liberals, rather than Labour, were one of the two big parties. The Labour party was formed at the start of the twentieth century and within about thirty years had replaced the Liberals in this role. One reason for the existence of this situation is the electoral system (see chapter 10). The other is the nature of the origin of British political parties. Britain is unlike most other countries in that its parties were first formed inside Parliament, and were only later extended to the public at large. During the eighteenth century Members of Parliament tended to divide themselves into two camps, those who usually supported the government of the time and those who usually did not. During the nineteenth century it gradually became the habit that the party which did not control the government presented itself as an alternative government. This idea of an alternat­ive government has received legal recognition. The leader of the second biggest party in the House of Commons (or, more exactly, of the biggest party which is not in government) receives the title 'Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition’ and even gets a salary to prove the importance of this role. He or she chooses a 'shadow cabinet', thereby presenting the image of a team ready to fill the shoes of the government at a moment's notice. As a result of these origins, neither party existed solely to look after the interests of one particular group (although some groups in society were naturally more attracted to one of the two parties than the other). Furthermore, although they could be distinguished by certain broad differences in their outlooks on life, the two parties did not exist to promote single, coherent political philosophies. The main reason for their existence was to gain power by forming effect­ive coalitions of interest-groups and individuals. Although the Labour party was formed outside Parliament, and, as its name implies, did exist to promote the interests of a particular group (the working class), it soon fitted into the established frame­work. It is very difficult for smaller parties to challenge the dominance of the bigger ones. If any of them seem to have some good ideas, these ideas tend to be adopted by one of the three biggest parties, who all try to appeal to as large a section of the population as possible. The fact that the party system originated inside Parliament has other consequences. Parties do not, as they do in many other coun­tries, extend into every area of public and social life in the country. Universities, for example, each have their Conservative, Labour and

 


The modern situation 75


Liberal Democrat clubs, but when there is an election for officers of the student union, it is not normally fought according to national party divisions. The same is true of elections within trade unions (see chapter 15). Another consequence is that it is usually a party's MPs who have the most control over party policy and the biggest influence on the choice of party leader. This does not mean that the parties are undemocratic. Their members who are not MPs can have an effect on policy in a number of ways. First, they can make their views known at the annual party conference. In the case of the three main parties, this takes place in the autumn and lasts about a week. Second, the local party has the power to decide who is going to be the party's candidate for MP in its area at the next election. However, these powers are limited by one important consideration — the appearance of unity. Party policies are always presented as potential government policies, and a party's leading MPs are always presented as potential ministers. If you want to look like a realistic potential government, you don't want to show the public your disagreements. Party confer­ences are always televised. As a result they sometimes tend to be showcases whose main purpose is not so much to debate important matters as to boost the spirits of party members and to show the public a dynamic, unified party. Similarly, if local party members decide not to re-select the present MP as their candidate in an election, it betrays disagreement and argument. Therefore, party members do not like this happening and most MPs can be sure that their local party will choose them again at the next election (see chapter 11 ). The modern situation During the last forty or so years, the traditional confidence in the British political system has weakened. In 1950, Britain, despite the hardships of the Second World War, could claim to be the richest and most stable large country in Europe. Collectively, its people seemed to know what they wanted and what they believed in. They seemed to be sure of themselves. This is no longer true. Britain is often rated as one of the poorest large countries in Europe, the policies of its governments have pulled in several different directions, and its people tend to be pessimistic about the future (>A loss of confidence). It is now commonplace for politicians and political commentators, when calling for a change in some matter, to compare the country unfavourably with some other European country. In these circumstances, it is quite possible that some of the distinct­ive characteristics of British public life will change. The matter of identity cards is one area of possible change. The British have always been rather proud of not having them. This has been seen as proof of the British dedication to the rights of the individual. It has also helped to give British people a feeling of being different. But what

> A loss of confidence In 1991, Prime Minister John Major remarked on his vision of Britain as 'a nation at ease with itself. However, an opinion poll published in February 1992 suggested that his vision was not reality. Over a thou­sand adults were interviewed face-to-face in 100 areas throughout Britain and were asked about their attitudes to various aspects of life in the country. In one series of ques­tions, interviewees were asked whether they were proud of certain institutions. Here are some of the results of the poll, compared with the results of similar surveys done 20-30 years before. % agreeing with statement 1960s- 1992 The British monarch is something to be proud of 86 26 The British Parliament is something to be proud of 75 35 The British health service is something to be proud of 89 41 The British education system is something to be proud of 77 27 In the 1992 poll, only 5% of those asked said that their pride in Britain and British institutions had increased in recent years; 54% said that it had decreased.

 


Date: 2015-12-18; view: 994


<== previous page | next page ==>
Caledonia, Cambria and Hibemia 6 page | Caledonia, Cambria and Hibemia 8 page
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.015 sec.)