ABSTRACT
The UK is one of the world’s most stable democracies with a party system structured by a left–right divide and a first-past-the-post electoral system that has long been dominated by just two parties, the Conservatives and Labour, with a third party, now called the Liberal Democrats, trailing some way behind, at least when it comes to parliamentary seats. At the time of writing, the UK parliament also boasts one Green MP, as well as several small parties which operate only in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, none of which have so far governed at national level and are therefore set aside for the purposes of this chapter. The Conservatives can lay claim to being one of the world’s oldest, most successful parties: situated firmly on the centre-right, they combine a commitment to neo-liberal economics with more authoritarian attitudes to crime and immigration and a nationalistic stance on the UK’s relationship with the EU. Labour is a centrist social democratic party, concerned not to destroy capitalism but to make it more dynamic and capable of financing a welfare state that corrects market failures in health and education and promotes equality of opportunity. It also has an essentially positive attitude to the EU – something shared by the Liberal Democrats, which, as the product of a merger between a social democratic and a liberal party, is populated by both ‘market’ and ‘social’ liberals (see Webb 2013). All three parties are more or less controlled by their parliamentary caucuses, from whose ranks their leaders are always recruited. 1 That said, as Figure 2.1 makes clear, the final say on who becomes leader has over time passed to grassroots members (and in Labour’s case its affiliated organisations). This democratisation of leadership selection has not produced radically different contests. True, over time, candidates have become younger, less experienced but more professional politicians, while the differences between them are arguably less ideological than was once the case. But there is little evidence that these changes have been driven by changes in the way leaders are elected. Nor, although contests have become longer and more expensive affairs, conducted not just by candidates but by organised campaign teams working both privately and publicly through the media, is there much evidence to suggest that they have become any more competitive. Indeed, perhaps the most striking fact of all is that leadership elections in the UK, despite it electing one of the world’s most iconic female prime ministers, are still dominated by men. Inclusiveness of the selectorate in the United Kingdom (1965–2012). https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315856025/540cfac0-4972-48a4-85d7-5703b70dfc94/content/fig2_1_B.tif" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> Notes Arrows indicate direction of change and years indicate date of adoption of new selectorate. * In 1981, party rules gave a share of the vote to local party associations. Beginning in 1993 this share has been determined through a ballot of party members.
