Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:22:06.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two-Party System in British Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Leslie Lipson
Leslie Lipson
Affiliation:
University of California (Berkeley)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Britain may fairly be called the classic home of two-party government. This claim is justifiable because of some characteristics for which the system, as employed in Britain, is distinctive. Chief among these is its long duration. Although there is room for disagreement among historians about the time and circumstances of its birth, it would be difficult to deny that two-party government was established earlier, has lasted longer, and at the present time is probably more firmly rooted there than in any contemporary state. Indeed, the practice of simplifying the complexities of politics into a contest for office between a pair of major claimants has endured in Britain through a catalogue of changes which would assuredly have wrecked a less effective system. In that country it has survived the evolution from an oligarchy of aristocrats to a democracy of the whole people; the transfer of power from monarchy to parliament and then from parliament to cabinet; the rise of large-scale industry with its social aftermath; the switch in economic policy from mercantilism to laissez faire and from this to state planning; and withal, the expansion and subsequent shrinkage of Britain's international might.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1953 , pp. 337 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1953

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 In suggesting that British politics are characterized by a two and a half party system, Carl J. Friedrich overemphasizes the deviations. Constitutional Government and Democracy (rev. ed., Boston, 1950), p. 414Google Scholar.

2 (Boston and New York, 1896), Vol. 1, pp. 71–72. My italics.

3 The Government of England (New York, 1912), Vol. 1, pp. 457, 458Google Scholar. My italics. See also Vol. 2, p 86.

4 “The party bond introduced a principle of unity among Cabinet Ministers other than that of mere individual obedience to the orders of the King. For that reason, party is the real secret of the step upwards from Cabal to Cabinet. The mutual loyalty of members inside the Cabinet was a reflection of the habit of party loyalty among the same persons in the world outside.” The Two-Party System in English Political History, Romanes Lecture, (Oxford, 1926)Google Scholar.

5 Democracy: the Threshold of Freedom (New York, 1948), p. 242Google Scholar.

6 It is worth noticing that though the intervals between British elections are irregular, the average length of Parliaments corresponds to the term of the President. Between 1832 and 1952, there were thirty general elections in one hundred and twenty years. Moreover, the change from the Septennial Act of 1715 to the quinquennial term provided under the Parliament Act of 1911 made no difference in this respect. From 1832 through 1910 twenty elections occurred in almost eighty years; from 1911 to 1952, ten were held in four decades.

7 Article 5.

8 Article 51.

9 As defined in the Constitution, ibid.

10 European and Comparative Government (New York, 1951), p. 142Google Scholar.

11 Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (2nd ed., New York, 1947), pp. 218–19Google Scholar.

12 As happens in the election of the President of the United States through the electoral college. Only once since the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment has the party system failed to produce this majority.

13 See Namier, L. B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2 vols., London, 1929), Vol. 1, pp. 79–80Google Scholar.

14 Note the comment of Morley in his Life of Gladstone: “The election [of 1885] ran a chequered course (Nov. 23–Dec. 19). It was the first trial of the whole body of male householders, and it was the first trial of the system of single-member districts.” Vol. 2, Bk. 9, Ch. 2 (2nd ed., New York, 1906), p. 486.

15 See his How Britain Is Governed (4th ed., London, [1940])Google Scholar, Chs. 4–5.

16 Party Government (New York, 1942), p. 79Google Scholar.

17 Party Government, p. 69.

18 Op. cit., p. 68.

19 For details about the effect of the second ballot in New Zealand, see my Politics of Equality (Chicago, 1948), pp. 190–91Google Scholar.

20 Op. cit., p. 219. Key cites the “French experience as a limitation on the single-member district theory,” as do others. But the limitation and the difficulty are of their own making.

21 Outside of Ulster the Nationalists almost always carried every Irish constituency, except for two in Dublin. Outside of Ireland the only seat they could win was the Scotland division of Liverpool where many Irish resided. See Lowell, , Government of England, Vol. 2, p. 128Google Scholar.

22 As Smellie, K. B. calls it. See his A Hundred Years of English Government (London, 1937), p. 196Google Scholar.

23 On which see Abbott, W. C., “The Origin of English Political Parties,” American Historical Review, Vol. 24, pp. 578–602 (07, 1919)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Op. cit., p. 413.

25 Op. cit., pp. 26–27.

26 In recent British censuses less than 20% of the population are classified as rural. About 5% of the gainfully-employed are engaged in farming.

27 Op. cit., p. 413.