No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Political parties in representative democracies have, as two of their most significant functions, to facilitate popular participation in the decision-making process and to implement, through control of governmental organs, those policies which are popularly favoured. Judged by these criteria, American parties are dysfunctional—so one critical school argues. American parties, they charge, are responsible neither to their members nor voters and are so organized and operated that they fail to govern effectively. When, in the early 1950s, this case against American parties had its greatest acceptance in the discipline, a number of critics contrasted American parties unfavourably with British parties. As an earlier generation of political scientists had urged Americans to adopt British institutions of government, so the critics of American parties favoured reforms which they thought were characteristic of British parties. If American parties became more like British parties, they argued, those parties would be more responsible and effective. Defenders of American parties refuted the critics' diagnosis and prescription by emphasizing the many environmental and institutional differences between Britain and the United States. British experience simply was not applicable in the U.S., they maintained. As study of British parties progressed an even more devastating rejoinder to critics of American parties emerged. Various findings began to suggest that although British parties obviously were much more cohesive in the legislature than were American parties, they were not nearly as responsible as the critics had assumed.
page 234 note 1 Gwendolen Carter in Carter, and Herz, , Major Foreign Powers, 4th ed. (Harcourt Brace and World, 1962), p. 58. Cf. also pp. 84, 114, 119, 216Google Scholar.
page 234 note 2 Finer, Samuel E. in Macridis, and Ward, , Modern Political Systems: Europe (Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 50Google Scholar.
page 234 note 3 This section draws upon the following leading statements of the responsible party view: American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, supplement to the American Political Science Review, 44 (September, 1950); Bailey, Stephen, The Condition of Our National Political Parties (Fund for the Republic, 1959)Google Scholar; Burns, James, The Deadlock of Democracy (Prentice-Hall, 1963)Google Scholar; and Schattschneider, E. E., Party Government (Rinehart, 1942)Google Scholar. See also Ranney, Austin, The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government (University of Illinois Press, 1954), esp. pp. 12–19Google Scholar.
page 235 note 1 op. cit. p. 14. See also A.P.S.A. Committee on Political Parties, op. cit. p. 24.
page 235 note 2 A.P.S.A. Committee on Political Parties, op. cit. pp. 21–2.
page 235 note 3 Schattschneider, op. cit. p. 161, n. 20.
page 235 note 4 A.P.S.A. Committee on Political Parties, op. cit. p. 48.
page 236 note 1 Bailey op. cit. p. 12.
page 237 note 1 McKenzie, Robert, British Political Parties, 2nd ed. (Mercury, 1963), pp. 187, 241Google Scholar.
page 237 note 2 Rose, Richard, Politics in England (Little, Brown, 1964), p. 88Google Scholar. Allowing for the fact that per capita income in the United States is about double that in Britain (see Macridis, Roy and Ward, Robert, Modern Political Systems: Europe (Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 17)Google Scholar, the member contributions mentioned in these paragraphs should be doubled to gain a more accurate understanding of the level of financial commitment required for party membership. Thus membership dues comparable to the Conservatives' for an American party would be 70 cents a year.
page 237 note 3 The Guardian, 15 October 1965, p. 7.
page 237 note 4 Report, of the National Executive Committee to the Sixty-fourth Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1965), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; The Guardian, 29 October 1965, p. 5.
page 237 note 5 Report of the National Executive… p. 37.
page 238 note 1 Harrison, Martin, Trade Unions and the Labour Party Since 1945 (Allen and Unwin, 1960), p. 48Google Scholar.
page 238 note 2 Ibid. p. 36.
page 238 note 3 Ibid. p. 101.
page 238 note 4 Report of the National Executive… p. 8. Indirect members, for example, cannot be delegates to Labour's annual conference.
page 238 note 5 Alexander, Herbert, Responsibility in Party Finance (Citizens' Research Foundation, 1963), pp. 22–3Google Scholar, and Survey Research Center codebook for 1964 election, deck II, column 60. Were the total figure for the American electorate known, the percentage of those contributing would be even higher since the electorate obviously is smaller than the total adult population.
page 239 note 1 Alexander, op. cit. p. 26.
page 239 note 2 Survey Research Center codebook for 1964 election, deck II, column 63.
page 239 note 3 Hanham, H. J., ‘The local organization of the British Labour Party’, Western Political Quarterly, 9 (06 1956), 385–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Blondel, Jean, ‘The Conservative Association and the Labour Party in Reading’, Political Studies, 6 (06 1958), 101–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 239 note 4 The information in this paragraph is from Rose, Richard's ‘The political ideas of English party activists’, American Political Science Review, 56 (06 1962), 362, 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 240 note 1 McKenzie, op. cit. pp. 189–93, 197–9.
page 240 note 2 Ibid. pp. 485–8, 505–16, 636.
page 240 note 3 (Knopf, 1965). For one earlier and less complete criticism see Rose, Saul, ‘Policy decisions in opposition’, Political Studies, 4 (06 1956), 128–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. McKenzie, 's rejoinder to Rose appears in Political Studies, 5 (06 1957), 176–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 240 note 4 Beer, op. cit. passim, but especially pp. 120, 174–84, 233–4.
page 240 note 5 Ibid. p. 388.
page 241 note 1 ‘Who makes party policy: British Labour, 1960–1961’, Midwest Journal of Political Science, 6 (02 1962), 182Google Scholar.
page 241 note 2 McKenzie, op. cit. pp. 407, 486.
page 241 note 3 Beer, op. cit. pp. 183–4.
page 241 note 4 McCallum, R. B. and Readman, Alison, The British General Election of 1945 (Cass, 1964), pp. 128–9Google Scholar.
page 241 note 5 Ibid.
page 241 note 6 Nicholas, H. G., The British General Election of 1950 (Macmillan, 1951), pp. 66–7, 80–1Google Scholar; Butler, David, The British General Election of 1951 (Macmillan, 1952), pp. 46, 90–1Google Scholar; Butler, David and Rose, Richard, The British General Election of 1959 (Macmillan, 1960), p. 49Google Scholar; Butler, David and King, Anthony, The British General Election of 1964 (Macmillan, 1965), pp. 58–62, 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 242 note 1 Butler, , The British General Election of 1951, p. 91Google Scholar.
page 242 note 2 See, for example, McKenzie, op. cit. pp. 244–5, 547; Rose, , Politics in England, p. 89Google Scholar; Bealey, Frank et al. , Constituency Politics (Faber, 1965), pp. 261–8Google Scholar.
page 242 note 3 Potter, Allen, ‘The English Conservative Constituency Association’, Western Political Quarterly, 9 (06 1956), 369CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 242 note 4 Blondel, Jean, Voters, Parties, and Leaders (Penguin, 1963), pp. 93–4Google Scholar.
page 242 note 5 Campbell, Angus et al. , The American Voter (Wiley, 1960), p. 91Google Scholar; Milbrath, Lester, Political Participation (Rand McNally, 1965), pp. 19, 26Google Scholar; Survey Research Center codebook for 1960 election, deck CO 9, column 16; Survey Research Center codebook for 1964 election, deck II, column 35.
page 243 note 1 ‘Inter-Party Competition in Britain—1950–1959’, Parliamentary Affairs, 17 (Winter 1963–1964), 52Google Scholar.
page 243 note 2 Rasmussen, Jorgen, ‘The implications of safe seats for British democracy’, Western Political Quarterly, 19 (09 1966), 516–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 243 note 3 Jones, Charles O., ‘Inter-Party competition for congressional seats’, Western Political Quarterly, 17 (09 1964), 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 243 note 4 Rasmussen, loc. cit.
page 244 note 1 The Guardian, 15 October 1965, pp. 1, 6.
page 245 note 1 The Guardian, 22 October 1965, p. 2.
page 245 note 2 The Guardian, 1 November 1965, p. 2. See also the issue of 11 November 1965, p. 3.
page 245 note 3 Butler, , The British General Election of 1951, p. 56Google Scholar; Butler and Rose, op. cit. p. 131; Butler and King, op. cit. p. 142.
page 246 note 1 These and subsequent figures on the 1959 addresses are based on the information in Butler and Rose, op. cit. pp. 131–2.
page 246 note 2 Two of the instances of frequent mention for both parties were for general policy topics rather than for more specific issues. These and subsequent figures for the 1964 addresses are based on the information in Butler and King, op. cit. p. 143.
page 246 note 3 Hogg, Quintin, The Case for Conservatism (Penguin, 1947), p. 231Google Scholar.
page 247 note 1 Ibid. pp. 229–33. A caveat must be offered, however, that Hogg was writing for a defeated party concerned to demonstrate that they were not reactionaries.
page 247 note 2 Virginia Quarterly Review, 31 (Winter 1955), 46–56Google Scholar.
page 247 note 3 Butler and Rose, op. cit. pp. 52, 59–61, 64, 71–2.
page 247 note 4 Butler and King, op. cit. pp. 129–42.
page 247 note 5 Ibid. p. 135.
page 247 note 6 Ibid. pp. 150–2, 153–5
page 248 note 1 Ibid. p. 153.
page 248 note 2 Butler, , The British General Election of 1951, pp. 59–60Google Scholar.
page 248 note 3 Milne, R. S. and Mackenzie, H. C., Marginal Seat (Hansard Society, 1958), pp. 117–21Google Scholar. The statements voters were asked to attribute to the leading parties were: (1) food subsidies and controls have been taken off too quickly in the last few years: (2) there should be more scope for free enterprise in this country: (3) in principle, all British secondary schools should be comprehensive schools; (4) no more British industries should be nationalized in the next ten years.
page 248 note 4 Ibid. p. 126.
page 248 note 5 Sunday Telegraph, 4 October 1964, p. 7.
page 249 note 1 The Telegraph, 30 September 1964, p. 32. Similar results had been obtained in 1962 when 47% thought parties were ‘all of a muchness’ and 55% did not see any ‘really important differences’ between parties (Rose, Richard, Politics in England, p. 158Google Scholar). Only 26%, however, had thought that parties were ‘all much of a muchness’ in 1955 (The Telegraph, loc. cit.).
page 249 note 2 Milne and Mackenzie, op. cit.; Milne, and Mackenzie, , Straight Fight (Hansard Society, 1954)Google Scholar; Benney, Mark et al. , How People Vote (Routledge, 1956)Google Scholar; Trenaman, Joseph and McQuail, Denis, Television and the Political Image (Methuen, 1961)Google Scholar.
page 249 note 3 Rose, , Politics in England, p. 75Google Scholar.
page 249 note 4 Milne, and Mackenzie, , Marginal Seat, p. 158Google Scholar. See also their comments on p. 191.
page 249 note 5 Butler and King, op. cit. pp. 146, 149.
page 249 note 6 Pollins, Harold, ‘The significance of the campaign in general elections’, Political Studies, 1 (10 1953), 211–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, although arguing that issues and the campaign do have an important impact upon the election results, sees a British general election as ‘a demonstration of relative loyalties to the parties rather than an occasion on which a tribunal passes judgement on the activities of the previous government’.
page 249 note 7 Benney et al., op. cit. pp. 202–3.
page 249 note 8 Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 250 note 1 Beer, op. cit. pp. 122, 184–5, 257. Labour's coefficient of cohesion was 99·9 and the Conservatives' 99·0.
page 250 note 2 ‘British M.P.s and their local parties: the Suez cases’, American Political Science Review, 54 (06 1960), 381Google Scholar.
page 250 note 3 Ibid. pp. 384, 385.
page 250 note 4 The Relations of the Profumo Rebels with Their Local Parties (University of Arizona Press, 1966), Institute of Government Research monographGoogle Scholar.
page 251 note 1 ‘Discipline in the Parliamentary Labour Party 1945–51’, Parliamentary Affairs, 18 (Summer, 1965), 294Google Scholar.
page 251 note 2 Ibid. pp. 294–5, 304.
page 251 note 3 Butler and King, op. cit. p. 356, state that ‘the average vote polled by all eleven [rebel] M.P.s since the war is 19%’.
page 252 note 1 Ranney, Austin, Pathways to Parliament (University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), pp. 74, 87Google Scholar.
page 252 note 2 Ibid. p. 89. Cf. also pp. 50–1.
page 252 note 3 Ibid. pp. 181–2. Ranney found five additional cases (pp. 161–4) in which Labour's national organization refused to endorse a candidate chosen locally compared to only one instance in the Conservative party. Yet he concludes (p. 166): ‘even in the Labour party the final word in the selection of most parliamentary candidates rests, in party law and political fact, in the constituency Labour parties, not in Transport House’.
page 252 note 4 The five Labour rebels of 1961, for example, were received back into the party without having to grovel. The Guardian, 29 May 1963, p. 1, and 30 May 1963, p. 3.
page 252 note 5 Ranney, op. cit. p. 280.
page 252 note 6 Ibid. pp. 10, 87, 89, 182–91.
page 253 note 1 McKenzie, op. cit. p. 242.
page 253 note 2 Potter, Allen, ‘The English Conservative constituency association’, Western Political Quarterly, 9 (06 1956), 370CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Blondel, Jean, ‘The Conservative association and the Labour party in Reading’, Political Studies, 6 (06 1958), 101–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a description of one Conservative association's financial problems. Blondel provides a dated, but interesting, example that central assistance to local associations in financial distress is not always as munificent as the locals might hope. When the Reading Conservative association asked central headquarters for help in 1931, the response was merely to dispatch a paid collector to assist the local association in raising a few hundred pounds.
page 253 note 3 Potter, op. cit. p. 370.
page 253 note 4 McKenzie, op. cit. p. 538.
page 253 note 5 Ibid. p. 521.
page 253 note 6 The National Executive's reports for six selected years—1952, 1953, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1965—state that it had reorganized four local parties and disaffiliated another. The disaffiliation was withdrawn without further action when the local party gave in to the National Executive.
page 254 note 1 In 1962 over a third—232—of the local Labour parties could pay no more to national headquarters than the minimum affiliation fee of $84. Fifty-three others could not pay even this much (Arnold-Forster, Mark, ‘Labour party funds’, The Guardian 7 02 1964, p. 12Google Scholar).
page 254 note 2 Hanham, H. J., ‘The local organization of the British Labour party’. Western Political Quarterly, 9 (06 1956), 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 254 note 3 Report of the National Executive Committee to the Sixty-third Annual Conference of the Labour Party (1964), p. 6.
page 254 note 4 Arnold-Forster, loc. cit.