Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T05:09:21.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cohesion of British Parliamentary Parties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Leon D. Epstein
Leon D. Epstein
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the perspective of those political scientists who would reform American parties so as to make them more “responsible,” British parties are familiar prototypes. Prominent among the admired qualities is the cohesion displayed in parliamentary voting by the members of each major British party. That this cohesion is greater than that of American legislative parties has been generally observed at least since the work of A. Lawrence Lowell. And it is common enough, though not universal, to regard British parliamentary solidarity as a virtue particularly because it permits a victorious party, after an election, to enact the program behind which a majority of voters have presumably been rallied. Correspondingly, the relatively low cohesion among Republican and among Democratic congressmen is taken as a defect of American politics.

The purpose of this article, however, is not primarily to discuss value judgments concerning parliamentary cohesion. Rather it is to examine the nature of that cohesion and the ways in which it is maintained. But regardless of the disputed merits of British practice, it is still reasonable to ask after such an examination whether the cohesion of party members in the House of Commons is the product of devices which the United States could adopt, or whether it is the result of underlying factors alien to the American environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 360 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Government of England, 2 vols. (New York, 1908), Vol. 2Google ScholarPubMed, Ch. 35.

2 A less favorable view of British parliamentary parties has been expressed by Pennock, J. Roland, “Responsiveness, Responsibility, and Majority Rule,” this Review, Vol. 46, pp. 790–807, at p. 801 (Sept., 1952)Google Scholar.

3 However, it has been contended by Julius Turner that the critics of American parties underestimate the degree to which those parties are now “responsible” in the sense of presenting clear alternatives to the voters. “Responsible Parties: A Dissent from the Floor,” this Review, Vol. 45, pp. 143–52 (March, 1951)Google Scholar.

4 This is the theme of the careful and systematic work by McKenzie, R. T., British Political Parties (London, 1955)Google Scholar. My own debt to his scholarship is very great.

5 In the author's “British Mass Parties in Comparison with American Parties,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71, pp. 97–125 (March, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Pressure from M.P.s of the majority party has certainly been known to influence government decisions. A recent instance was provided in 1953 by Conservative back-bench pressure on the Churchill Government to raise the level of pensions provided to retired officers of World War I. For a discussion of the policy-making role of Labor M.P.s, see Burns, James M., “The Parliamentary Labour Party in Great Britain,” this Review, Vol. 44, pp. 855–71, at pp. 870–71 (Dec., 1950)Google Scholar.

7 This holds for party re-adoption as well as for the election itself. In a rare instance where a constituency association actually sought to reject its sitting M.P. for at least partly local reasons, it is significant that the national party intervened in such a way as to prevent the result. The case was that of Mrs. E. M. Braddock, Labor M.P., whose difficulties with her Liverpool Exchange constituency party were described in The Times (London), April 29, 1955, p. 12 Google ScholarPubMed.

8 Hollis, Christopher, Can Parliament Survive? (London, 1949), pp. 64, 71 Google Scholar.

9 A particularly clear instance of an M.P. addressing the House on behalf of a local interest group may be found in a speech by Barbara Castle concerning the Lancashire cotton industry, 530 H. C. Deb. 1743–52 (July 22, 1954).

10 Note the explanation by Morrison, Herbert, Government and Parliament (London, 1954), p. 163 Google Scholar. A free vote was allowed on the question of raising the salaries of M.P.s, 528 H. C. Deb. 30–158 (May 24, 1954).

11 Harold Lever, 535 H. C. Deb. 1867–71 (Dec. 15, 1954).

12 Morrison, , Government and Parliament, p. 94 Google Scholar.

13 See R. H. S. Crossman's explanation for his vote in favor of the German rearmament agreement which he “passionately” opposed. 533 H. C. Deb. 477 (Nov. 17, 1954).

14 Nicholas, H. G., The British General Election of 1950 (London, 1951), pp. 251–52Google Scholar. Zilliacus was later re-admitted to the Labor party and elected as an M.P. in 1955.

15 The Times (London), Oct. 8, 1947, p. 4 Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., Oct. 15, 1948, p. 5.

17 457 H. C. Deb. 108–13 (Oot. 27, 1948).

18 The Times (London), Oct. 29, 1948, p. 4 Google ScholarPubMed. Incidentally, the executive council of the Keighley constituency Labor party claimed that it had decided to recommend that Thomas not be re-adopted as a candidate even before his letter to The Times.

19 Ibid., Jan. 4, 1949, p. 4.

20 Ibid., March 12, 1955. For an excellent sketch of SirAcland, Richard, see “Bart Errant,” New Statesman and Nation, Vol. 49, pp. 468–69 (April 2, 1955)Google Scholar.

21 53rd Annual Report of the Labour Conference (1954), p. 202 Google Scholar.

22 504 H. C. Deb. 1905–13 (Aug. 1, 1952).

23 The executive council did adopt a resolution of no-confidence in its M.P., but Hinchingbrooke saved himself by getting a general meeting of the constituency association to overrule the executive council. This was a very considerable achievement, attributable to a unique personality in a largely rural constituency, and it is doubtful whether many other M.P.s could similarly survive after offending both national and local leaders. Hinchingbrooke's constituency troubles were related in The Times (London), Oct. 6, 1952, p. 2 Google Scholar; Oct. 10, 1952, p. 3; and Oct. 31, 1952, p. 6.

24 531 H. C. Deb. 495–504 (July 28, 1954), 724–822 (July 29, 1954).

25 The Labor party's disciplinary procedure is established in its Standing Orders. The parliamentary party has the power to withdraw the whip. The National Executive Committee (of the external Labor organization) is to be informed of such action and to decide whether expulsion from the party as a whole is appropriate. 53rd Annual Report of the Labour Conference (1954), p. 202 Google Scholar.

26 504 H. C. Deb. 1699–1840 (July 31, 1952) and 1869–1960 (Aug. 1, 1952).

27 52nd Annual Report of the Labour Conference (1953), p. 151 Google Scholar.

28 The Times (London), Feb. 24, 1954, p. 8 Google ScholarPubMed.

29 Ibid., Feb. 25, 1954, p. 6.

30 53rd Annual Report of the Labour Conference (1954), pp. 92–108 Google Scholar.

31 533 H. C. Deb. 695–96 (Nov. 18, 1954).

32 The Times (London), Nov. 24, 1954, p. 8 Google ScholarPubMed.

33 Nevertheless, the exclusion of the rebels from essentially non-party posts does illustrate the domination of the parliamentary machinery by the party whips. 536 H. C. Deb. 802–54 (Jan. 31, 1955).

34 The Times (London) carried stories about favorable constituency resolutions concerning Victor Yates (Nov. 29, 1954, p. 5), Ernest Ferneyhough (Dec. 13, 1954, p. 4), and George Craddock (Dec. 14, 1954, p. 4).

35 Ibid., Feb. 25, 1955, p. 8; March 11, 1955, p. 8.

36 537 H. C. Deb. 2066 (March 2, 1955).

37 Ibid., cols. 2116–22.

38 Ibid., col. 2176. Attlee's discomfiture was indicated by the first sentence of his response: “My right hon. Friend is asking me that question.”

39 The number of abstainers is arrived at by noting Labor M.P.s who did vote against the government's motion but who did not vote for the official Labor amendment. Ibid., cols. 2189–2200. For a refinement introduced into this method of calculation, see the Manchester Guardian Weekly, March 10, 1955, p. 5 Google Scholar.

40 The Times (London), March 17, 1955, p. 6 Google ScholarPubMed.

41 Ibid., March 24, 1955, p. 8.

42 Manchester Guardian Weekly, April 7, 1955, p. 2 Google Scholar.

43 Ibid.

44 Tribune, April 1, 1955, p. 1 Google ScholarPubMed.

45 Compare the view of American politics expounded by D. W. Brogan. He holds that the United States Constitution is designed to make difficult an effective (that is, a unified) party system. Politics in America (New York, 1954), pp. 91–94 Google ScholarPubMed.

46 The significance of this difference is discussed in the article on British mass parties referred to in note 5.