Home About us Products Services Contact us Bookmark
:: wikimiki.org ::
Two-party System

Two-party system

A two-party system is a type of party system where only two political parties have a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes hold all, or nearly all, elected offices. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

How and why it occurs

Two-party systems often develop spontaneously when the voting system used for elections discriminates against third or smaller parties, because the number of votes received for a party in a whole country is not directly related to the proportion of seats it receives in the country's assembly/assemblies. While there is sometimes a coincidental relationship between votes cast and seats received in these systems, voters are not assured that their one vote will directly count toward an additional seat. The most widely-used system to have this effect, the simple plurality system (first past the post) often appears to pull systems into encouraging the survival of only two major parties: a third force can break in on the scene (the Labour Party in 20th-century Britain, or the Republican Party in the 19th-century United States, for example) but only at the ultimate expense of a former major party (the Liberal Party in Britain, the Whigs in the USA respectively). The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude - see Duverger's law. Some representation systems - such as those involving a single elected president or a mayor dominating the government - may encourage two-party systems, since ultimately the contest will pit the two most popular candidates against each other. When constituencies (districts) vote for candidates on the basis of a geographical constituency, all votes for candidates other than the winner count for nothing. This reflects another factor that encourages a two party system: smaller parties often cannot win enough votes in a constituency because they have smaller support and sometimes more scattered support than larger parties. Often a first-past-the-post electoral system and the election of candidates from geographical constituencies (districts) appear together in a single political system: this means that some smaller parties can garner a significant proportional of votes nationally, but receive few constituency seats and thus cannot realistically expect to compete overall on an equal footing with larger country-wide parties. In countries that use proportional representation (PR), especially where the whole country forms a single constituency (like Israel), the electoral rules discourage a two-party system; the number of votes received for a party relates directly and proportionally to the number of representative seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of proportional representation would make a two party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote. Often, two-party systems result from various factors, mostly the use of a first-past-the-post voting system, rather than from deliberate electoral/political engineering.

Examples

Two-party systems have historically occurred commonly in the so-called Anglosphere nations such as the United Kingdom and former British colonies like Jamaica, New Zealand and the United States. While Americans and Britons often see the two-party system as natural, based on their long experiences with it, it in fact comes about as a product of particular rules and conventions (especially those involving first-past-the-post voting). The two parties that dominate at any particular time thus have an incentive to keep the existing rules in operation, so as to prevent electoral erosion to the benefit of smaller parties. In Canada, only two parties have a realistic chance of winning, but the other parties often get enough seats to make a difference. In some countries, the system, while not a true two-party system, may evolve to a situation where there are two rather stable coalitions, each with a dominant party, and power alternates between the two. This is the case in France since 1981 (see Politics of France).

Advantages and problems

The two-party system's defenders argue that:
- Uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies remain non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly. (Others dispute whether such innate conservatism provides advantages. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents of the two-party system suggest that it enhances stability while eventually allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.)
- The dynamics of a two-party system drives both parties' policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining (hopefully) distinctive enough to motivate their core support.
- Two-party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, appear less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.
- The two party system has been one of the linchpins of the stability that characterizes the American political tradition. The major parties are really broadly based coalitions that already represent a great diversity of views. By welcoming many different opinions, the major parties prevent themselves from becoming narrowly based ideological factions.
- The dozens of U.S. minority parties, on either side of this philosophical divide, tend to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. The nation would be stronger if the two major political parties were to define their philosophy in relation to this fundamental principle and develop their platforms to be consistent with their philosophy. Minority-party enthusiasts would better serve the nation, and their own interests, were they to align with whichever major party most closely embraces their beliefs and then work diligently to influence the platform and performance of the major party of their choice. [Henry Lamb] Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of two-party systems argue variously that:
- Stability is not desirable in itself.
- The two-party system does produce stable governments, but this comes at the expense of the preferred outcome of stable democracy.
- Two-party systems do not appear intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany (which has a multi-party system through proportional representation). Observers also criticise two-party systems for the following alleged flaws:
- Simplified (virtual two-way elections) motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the "other person" (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.
- If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant-party system may develop.
- Debate in the assembly of the country can often become adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly-perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation, especially reforms that may benefit the country.
- Campaign contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system - since it has fewer players to receive donations.
- In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party's platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics' minds of a one-party system. Examples include the American notion of a "Republicrat".
- First-past-the-post election systems tend to produce fewer female and minority representatives than proportional representation systems.
- Elections based on geographical district representation can become subject to gerrymander. Even without deliberate partisan gerrymander, legislative representation can skew wildly from the actual percentage of the vote a party wins. For example, the party with the second-highest total vote tally actually won a parliamentary majority in the 1847, 1852, 1874, and 1951 UK general elections, and the most seats in the January 1910, December 1910, 1929, and February 1974 elections. The electoral systems which tend to favour two-party systems (notably the "biggest pile of votes wins" system) also receive criticism because:
- Most electors have perforce to engage in tactical voting, voting for candidates that may not be their first choice - either to help a perceived potential "winner" or to block a potential enemy.
- Smaller parties suffer from under-representation: they will not receive a number of seats in the country's assembly that reflects the number of votes they receive (and therefore the amount of support they could or do receive). Some see this as undemocratic, arguing that citizens who vote for small parties should receive fair representation.
- Smaller parties often represent unconventional or 'alternative' (compared to the main parties) ideologies and formulate policy on the basis of such ideologies. Some comentators argue that in a democracy, all supported ideologies should receive fair representation.
- Larger parties benefit from over-representation; some see this as undemocratic.

See also


- List of politics-related topics
- Duopoly ja:二大政党制 Category:Political partiesCategory:Elections

Party system

A party system is a concept in political science concerning the system of government in a state where political parties exist. The party system of a state determines how many political parties in a state have a realistic chance of becoming the government, usually through winning elections. Party systems are usually created by a variety of factors, such as the type of electoral system used in a state. For example, the use of First Past the Post in elections to a state's primary legislative assembly (for example general elections) usually results in a two-party system. There are four distinct types:
- Single-party system – when only one party can be the government because all other parties are banned;
- Two-party system – when only two parties can realistically compete to become the government;
- Dominant-party system – when only one party can realistically compete to become the government because of the weakness of other parties;
- Multi-party system – when more than two parties can realistically compete to become the government.

See also


- List of democracy and elections-related topics Category:Political parties Category:Elections Category:Systems ja:政党制

Political parties

A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns. Some parties are not permitted to or choose not to seek power through elections and so may turn to other forms of pressure, sometimes terrorism. Parties often espouse a certain ideology, but may also represent a coalition among disparate interests. In parliamentary systems of government, most political parties have an elected leader who, if his or her party is elected, becomes head of government. In presidential systems, especially those with full separation of powers, there may not be a formal leader. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government. Partisanship is the tendency of supporters of political parties to subscribe to or at least support their party's views and policies in contrast to those of other parties. Differentiation is essential to most political parties: they must be different at least in some ways to other parties to compete in politics and win elections. Extreme partisanship is sometimes referred to as partisan warfare.

Nonpartisan, Single-party, two-party, and multi-party governments

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, or the law does not permit political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate for office runs on her or his own merits rather than as a member of a political party. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature; even if there are caucuses for specific issues. Despite being nonpartisan, most members have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Historians have frequently interpreted Federalist No. 10 to imply that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the government to be nonpartisan. The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the US Congress were nonpartisan. The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the only nonpartisan state government body in the United States. Many city and county governments are nonpartisan. Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan governments generally evolve into political parties. In single-party systems, only one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be, however, identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. In Dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore and the African National Congress in South Africa. Also, one party dominant systems existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990's, and in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the 1880s until the 1970s. Two-party systems are states such as the United States and Jamaica in which there are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is extremely difficult. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but in two-party states political parties are traditionally catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive. The relationship between the voting system used and the two-party system was described by Maurice Duverger and is known as Duverger's Law. Duverger's Law Multi-party systems are systems in which there are multiple parties. In nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom, there may be two strong parties, with a third party that is electorally successful. The party may frequently come in second place in elections and pose a threat to the other two parties, but has still never formally held government. In some rare cases, such as in Finland, the nation may have an active three-party system, in which all three parties routinely hold top office. It is very rare for a country to have more than three parties who are all equally successful, and all have an equal chance of independently forming government. More commonly, in cases where there are numerous parties, no one party often has a chance of gaining power, and parties must work with each other to form coalition governments. This has been an emerging trend in the politics of the Republic of Ireland.

Parties and directions

Political parties are often considered on a political spectrum. One typical spectrum has the Left associated with radical or progressive policies and the Right with conservative or traditional policies. Other analyses include other dimensions such as the political parties' acceptance of parliamentary democracy as opposed to authoritarian or totalitarian attitudes, and economic policies, the Left favoring social-democracy, socialism or communism, while the Right tends to favor laissez-faire economics or Fascism. Centrist parties often adopt a collection of policies that defy easy placing on the political spectrum. Many parties will have (formal or informal) factions within them that have differing views on policy direction.

Colors and emblems for parties

:Main article: see political colour Generally speaking, over the world, political parties associate themselves with colors, primarily for identification, especially for voter recognition during elections. Red usually signifies leftist, communist or socialist parties. Conservative and Christian democratic parties generally use blue or black. Recently in the United States, this trend has been reversed. Pink sometimes signifies socialist. Yellow is often used for liberalism. Green is the color for green parties and Islamist parties. Orange is sometimes a color of nationalism, such as in The Netherlands, or is a color of reform such as in Ukraine. In the past, Purple was considered the color of royalty, but is rarely used in modern-day political parties. Brown is generally associated with fascist or neofascist parties, going back to the Nazi Party's brownshirt security guards. Color associations are useful for mnemonics when voter illiteracy is significant. Another case where they are used is when it is not desirable to make rigorous links to parties, particularly when coalitions and alliances are formed between political parties and other organizations, for example: Red Tory, "Purple" (Red-Blue) alliances, Red-Green Alliances, Blue-Green Alliances, Pan-green coalitions, and Pan-blue coalitions. The emblem of socialist parties is often a red rose held in a fist. Communist parties often use a hammer, a sickle, or both.

International organizations of political parties

During the 19th and 20th century, many national political parties organized themselves into international organizations along similar policy lines. Notable examples are the International Workingmen's Association (also called the First International), the Socialist International (also called the Second International), the Communist International, (also called the Third International), and the Fourth International, as organizations of Working class parties, or the Liberal International (yellow), and the International Democrat Union (blue). Worldwide green parties have recently established the Global Greens. The Socialist International, the Liberal International, and the International Democrat Union are all based in London.

See also


- List of politics-related topics
- List of political parties
- Party class
- Political faction (both pre- and within a modern party)

External links


- [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php U.S. Party Platforms from 1840-2004 at The American Presidency Project: UC Santa Barbara]
- [http://www.electionworld.org/parties.htm Political parties around the world]
- [http://www.politicalresources.net/ Political resources on the net]
- [http://www.broadleft.org/ Leftist political parties of the world] Category:Elections Category:Political parties ko:정당 ja:政党 simple:Political party

Coalition government

A coalition government, or coalition cabinet, is a cabinet in parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate. The usual reason for this arrangement is that no party on its own has a majority in the parliament. In times of crisis such as a war or a major economic or political crisis parties may form an all-party National Unity Government or Grand Coalition. Cabinets based on a coalition with majority in the parliament ideally are more stable and longlived than minority cabinets. While the former are prone to internal struggles, they have less reason to fear votes of non confidence, although majority governments based on a single party are usually even more stable as long as its majority can be maintained. Coalition cabinets are common in countries where the parliament is proportionally representative for several political parties. It does not appear at all in countries where the cabinet is chosen by the president rather than the lower house (such as the United States). In semi-presidential systems, such as France, where the president formally appoints the prime minister but where the government itself must still maintain the confidence of parliament, coalition governments occur quite regularly. Countries that often have a coalition cabinet include the Nordic countries, the Benelux countries, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Israel and India. Switzerland has been ruled by a loose coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament since 1959, called the "Magic Formula". Sometimes a coalition government is also created in times of national difficulties or crises, for example during wartime, to give the government a high degree of political legitimacy and acceptability whilst also diminishing internal political strife. To deal with a situation where no clear majorities appear, parties either form coalition cabinets, supported by a parliamentary majority, or minority cabinets which can consist of one or several parties. In Germany, for instance, coalitions are the norm as it is rare for either the CDU/CSU or SPD to win a majority of their own. Thus coalitions are formed with at least one of the smaller parties. Helmut Kohl's CDU governed for years in coalition with the FDP, From 1998 to 2005, Gerhard Schröder's SPD was in a coalition with the Greens. If a coalition collapses a confidence vote is held. A similar situation exists in Israel with its dozens of parties. The centre-right Likud thus forms coalitions with far right and orthodox groups, while Labour allies itself with more leftist and pacifist parties. In both countries, grand coalitions of the two large parties also occur, but these are rarer and large parties usually prefer to associate with small ones. But if none of the larger parties can receive enough votes to form their preferred coalition, a grand coalition may be the only choice. This is the current situation in Germany: In early elections in September 2005, the CDU/CSU did not garner enough votes to form a coalition with the FDP; similarly the SPD and Greens did not have enough votes to continue their governing coalition. A grand coaltion was formed between the CDU/CSU and the SPD, but partnerships like these usually involve carefully structured cabinets. The CDU/CSU ended up gaining the Chancellory, but the SPD took a majority of cabinet posts. A coalition can consist of any number of parties. In Germany, a coalition rarely consists of more than two parties (where CDU and CSU, two non-competing parties that always form a single caucus, are considered a single party), while in Belgium, where there are separate Dutch language and French language parties for each political group, coalitions of six parties are quite common. India's governing coalition, the United Progressive Alliance, consists of fourteen different parties. Finland experienced her most stable government since the independence with a five-party coalition established in the 1990s. In Australia, the conservative Liberal and National parties are united in an effectively permanent coalition. This coalition has become so stable (at least at a Federal level) and so permanent, that in effect Australia has a two-party system. In the United Kingdom, coalition governments (known as National Governments) have since 1915 only been appointed at times of national crisis. The most prominent was the National Government of 1931-1940. In other circumstances when no party has had a majority, minority governments have been the rule. However, the devolved government in Scotland is run by a coalition of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal-Democrats, as Labour does not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Arguments for and against coalition government

Coalition governments often occur in countries that possess an electoral system based upon proportional representation. Advocates of PR suggest that a coalition government leads to more consensual politics, in that a government comprised of differing parties (often based on different ideologies) would have to concur in regard to governmental policy. Another advantage is that a coalition government better reflects the popular opinion of the electorate within a country. People who disapprove of coalition governments believe that such governments have a tendency to be fractious and prone to disharmony. This is because coalitions would be comprised of different parties with differing beliefs, who may not always agree on the correct path for governmental policy. Sometimes the results of an election are of such nature that the coalitions that are mathematically most probable are ideologically unfeasible, such as in Flanders or Northern Ireland. A second problem may be the ability for minor parties to be "kingmakers" and especially in close elections, gain far more for their support than their vote would indicate.

See also


- List of democracy and elections-related topics
- cohabitation (government)
- First Past the Post electoral system Category:Political partiesCategory:Elections ja:連立政権

Third political party

In any two-party system of politics, a third party is a party other than the two dominant ones. While technically the term is limited to the third largest party, it is often used as shorthand to describe any smaller party. For instance, in the United Kingdom a third party is a national political party other than the Conservatives and Labour which has a substantial presence in the House of Commons. It is currently generally used to refer to the Liberal Democrats. The term "third parties" is used in countries with first past the post electoral systems as these systems tend create a two-party system; meaning successful smaller parties are rare. Countries using proportional representation have less of a tendency to create a two-party system; meaning successful smaller parties are not rare. In fact coalitions including the smaller parties is the norm in such a country. A party needs to have a certain level of success to be generally considered a third party. Smaller parties that only win a small percentage of the vote and no seats in the legislature are often termed minor or fringe parties. In U.S. politics, for instance, a third party is a political party other than the Democrats or Republicans that also has national influence. Third parties are not usually true contenders for forming a government or winning the presidency. There are many reasons for third parties to run however. The platform of a national election campaign means that attention will be paid to the opinions of third parties. The larger parties will be forced to respond and adapt to these challenges, and often the larger parties copy ideas from smaller challengers. Some third parties also hope that the party can slowly build its support and eventually become one of the dominant parties, as the Labour Party in Britain did. In the Westminster system there is also the possibility of minority governments, that can give smaller parties strength disproportional to their size. Examples include the U.S. Republican Party when it ran Lincoln for the Presidency and the Irish Parliamentary Party that pushed for Home Rule in Ireland in the late nineteenth century.

See also


- Third party (Canada)
- Third party (United States) Category:Politics



Assembly

Assembly may refer to the following things:
- In politics, any body meeting together to discuss matters, a local neighborhood or popular assembly, a parliament or a legislative assembly such as the French revolutionary Legislative Assembly, or a body more designed to mediate between otherwise independent bodies, such as the United Nations General Assembly.
- In mechanics, architecture and electronics, the action of putting together the separate parts of what is intended to be assembled. Modules, components or elements or combinations of such may be the objects of the assembly. "Assembly" may also refer to the whole that results from such action.
- Sometimes, in schools, a body collecting the students together for prayer, song, bible readings and a moral message, or things such as visits from authors or wildlife shelters.
- In Microsoft .NET, .NET assemblies are building blocks of an application, similar to a DLL (a Microsoft shared library), but in addition to containing executable code, an assembly also contains information found in a DLL's type library. The type library information in an assembly, called a manifest, describes public functions, data, classes and version info.
- Assembly Language a type of computer programming language handled by an assembler.
- Assembly might also be mentioned when referring to a non-denominational Bible-centered church Assembly might also mean:
- The Assembly, a short-lived 80's Synth Pop band
- Freedom of assembly
- Assembly demo party

Plurality

A plurality (or "relative majority") is the largest share of something, which may or may not be a majority. For example, if an election had three candidates, who received 40%, 25%, and 35% of the vote, the candidate with 40% would have a plurality, but not a majority. Some elections or voting methods require merely a plurality; the best-known is the First Past The Post system, sometimes called plurality voting, but other systems such as Borda count are also plurality-based. Other systems require a majority, using methods such as runoff voting if a majority is not initially produced. Plurality-based voting systems can be very simple and transparent compared to ones that require majorities; the simplest case, First Past The Post, simply allows each voter to select one candidate and awards the election to the candidate with the most votes. However, they are also the most prone to tactical voting, and can elect a candidate even though there is another candidate who would be preferred over them by the majority of voters. For example, in a vote like this
- Candidate A, Democratic Communist Party, 30%
- Candidate B, Socialist Communist Party, 30%
- Candidate C, Conservative Party, 40% it seems clear that a majority of voters - 60% - want a communist candidate to be elected. However, because their vote is split between two candidates, the conservative candidate will be elected with a plurality even though conservatives are in a minority. This effect means that jurisdictions with plurality-based systems tend to have small numbers of active parties - often, as in the United States, only two parties with any real chance of election. In these systems it can be very difficult for any view not within the two established parties to be heard, as switching a vote from your favourite of the two most popular parties to a smaller party increases the chances that, with the vote split, the voter's less favoured of the two most popular parties will be elected. It is even possible for a party with majority support to fail to be elected under these systems, if it is not one of the two traditional biggest parties; for example, in a First Past The Post vote:
- 40 voters (A) prefer party 1, followed by party 3
- 50 voters (B) prefer party 2, followed by party 3
- 60 voters (C) prefer party 3, followed by party 1
- 70 voters (D) prefer party 3, followed by party 2 In this case, party 3 is by far the preferred party, with 130 of the 220 voters preferring it to the other parties. However, if people think that only party 1 and party 2 (the traditionally established parties) have a chance of being elected, then these voters are likely to vote tactically for the party they prefer of the ones they consider electable; so in fact party 2 will be elected, with 120 votes, followed by party 1 with 100 votes. Party 3 will gain few votes, reinforcing the perception that it is unelectable and encouraging its supporters to continue to vote tactically in further elections between those parties. It has been suggested that the Liberal Democrats (UK) in the United Kingdom may have at various points in the 1990s and 2000s been the party preferred by the highest number of voters, while remaining in third place in General Election votes. This problem does not exist in voting systems requiring a majority. For example, in the Alternative Vote system (the single-place version of Single Transferable Vote), the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes transferred to the voter's second-preferred (or in later rounds third- or fourth-preferred) party, successively until one candidate has over 50% of the vote. This should mean that voters are free to vote for their genuine first preference, knowing that if that party really is in a small minority, their vote will be transferred to their favourite of the two top parties. However, all such systems are complex when compared with the extremely simple First Past The Post system, and may introduce their own undesirable effects; so plurality systems are still used in the major national elections of the majority of jurisdictions.

External Links


- [http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_pg Article on the practical effects in Papua New Guinea of switching from a majority-based to a plurality-based voting system] Category:Voting theory

Labour Party (UK)

The Labour Party is the principal centre-left political party in the United Kingdom (see British politics). It is one of the United Kingdom's three main political parties and is currently the party of government in the United Kingdom. It describes itself as a Democratic Socialist party and is a member of the Socialist International. Under the leadership of Tony Blair it won by a landslide victory in the 1997 general election, and formed its first government since the 1979 general election. It retained its position with two further large victories in the 2001 and the 2005 general elections. Under Blair's leadership, the party has adopted a number of liberal policies.

Structure

2005 The Labour Party is a membership organisation consisting of Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions and socialist societies, including the Co-operative Party, with which it has an electoral agreement. Members who are elected to parliamentary positions take part in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP). The party's decision-making bodies, on a national level, formally include the National Executive Committee (NEC), Labour Party Conference, and National Policy Forum (NPF) - although in practice the Parliamentary leadership has the final say. Questions of internal party democracy have frequently provoked disputes in the party. For many years, Labour had a policy of Irish unity by consent, and did not allow residents of Northern Ireland to apply for membership, instead supporting the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). The 2003 Labour Party Conference accepted legal advice that the party could not continue to prohibit residents of the province joining, but the National Executive has decided not to organise or contest elections there.

Early years

The Labour Party's origins lie in the late 19th century, when it became apparent that there was an increasing need for a third party in Britain to represent the interests and needs of the large working-class population (for instance, the 1899 Lyons vs. Wilkins judgement that limited certain types of picketing). Some members of the trade union movement were interested in moving into the political field and after the extension of the franchise to working class men in 1867 and 1885, the Liberal Party had endorsed some trade union-sponsored candidates. In addition several small socialist groups had been formed which wanted to link to the movement and give it a wider policy. Among these were the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society (an intellectual group whose members were mainly middle-class), the Social Democratic Federation and the Scottish Labour Party. British politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was divided between the perceived 'establishment', represented by the Conservative Party (nicknamed the Tories), and a more radical 'non-conformist' tradition, based around for example Welsh and North Midlands Methodism. The non-conformist tradition was embodied by the Liberal Party under leaders like William Ewart Gladstone and David Lloyd George. After the Representation of The People Act, 1884, most adult men had the vote but about 40% were still unenfranchised, mainly among the working class who would be more likely to support parties of the left. David Lloyd GeorgeIn 1899 a Doncaster member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, Thomas R. Steels, proposed in his union branch that the Trade Union Congress call a special conference to bring together all the left-wing organisations and form them into a single body which would sponsor Parliamentary candidates. The motion was passed at all stages including by the TUC and this special conference was held at the International Hall, Farringdon Street, London on February 27-28, 1900. The meeting was attended by a broad spectrum of working-class and left-wing organisations; trade unions representing about one-third of the membership of the TUC sent delegates. The Conference created an association called the Labour Representation Committee, and it was to have acted as a body coordinating attempts to elect to Parliament members who had been sponsored by trade unions as representing the working-class population. It had no single leader. In default of any other candidate, the Independent Labour Party's nominee Ramsay MacDonald was elected as Secretary. He had the difficult task of keeping the various strands of opinions in the LRC united. The October 1900 'Khaki election' came too soon for the new party to effectively campaign. Only 15 candidatures were sponsored, but two were successful: Keir Hardie in Merthyr Tydfil and Richard Bell in Derby. Two candidates from the Social Democratic Federation were endorsed but the SDF was unhappy with the essentially compromising agenda of the Labour Representation Committee. At the SDF's 1901 conference it voted to withdraw. However support for the LRC among the trade unions was boosted by the 1901 Taff Vale case, a dispute between strikers and a railway company that ended with the union ordered to pay £23,000 damages for a strike. The judgment effectively made strikes illegal (since employers could recoup the cost of lost business from the unions). The apparent acquiescence of the Conservative government of Arthur Balfour intensified support for the LRC against a government that appeared uninterested in the problems of working people. In the 1902-03 period the LRC won two by-elections. Arthur Balfour The LRC won 29 seats in the 1906 election, helped by the secret 1903 pact between Ramsay Macdonald and Liberal Chief Whip Herbert Gladstone which aimed at avoiding Labour/Liberal contests in the interest of removing the Conservatives from office. In their first meeting after the election, the group's Members of Parliament decided to take the name "The Labour Party" (February 15, 1906). James Keir Hardie, who had taken a leading role in getting the party established, was elected as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party (in effect, the Leader), although only by one vote over David Shackleton after several ballots. In the party's early years, the Independent Labour Party (ILP) provided much of its activist base as the party did not have an individual membership until 1918 and operated as a conglomerate of affiliated bodies until that date. The Fabian Society provided much of the intellectual stimulus for the party. One of the first acts of the new Liberal government was to reverse the Taff Vale judgement. In 1909 the Osbourne judgment ruled that Trade Unions could not raise funds for political purposes, a move which threatened one of Labour's main funding sources. This was especially detrimental to the Labour party as it supporters were generally poorer than other political parties. The two elections in 1910 saw Labour gain 40 seats and 42 seats respectively. In 1911 David Lloyd George gave MPs a wage of £400 per annum, which partly helped to alleviate the financial problems and the Osbourne judgment was overturned in 1913. Support grew for Labour during the 1910-1914 period as a result of an unprecedented scale of strike action. Seamen, rail workers, cotton workers, coal miners, dockers and many other groups all organised strikes, with many sympathy strikes also occurring. This increase in action can partly be explained by the recession of 1908-09 and subsequent rise in unemployment, as well as the growing support for radical change among the working-class (such as support for syndicalism). This was no doubt helped by the sometimes heavy-handed measures of the Liberal government; Winston Churchill sent in troops to the Rhondda valley in 1910 to deal with coal miners, resulting in some fatalities. During the First World War the Liberal Party split between factions supporting leader David Lloyd George and former leader Herbert Asquith. At the end of the war universal adult male suffrage was enacted, together with votes for women over the age of 30. The Liberal split, accompanied by this fundamental change in the system, allowed the Labour Party to co-opt some of The Liberals support, and by the 1922 general election Labour had supplanted the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives. With the Liberals still in turmoil, Labour formed its first minority government with Liberal support in January 1924, with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister; the government collapsed after nine months when the Liberals voted for a Select Committee inquiry which MacDonald had declared an issue of confidence but the Liberal electoral base had vanished. The ensuing general election saw the publication four days before polling day of the Zinoviev Letter implicating Labour in a plot for a Communist revolution, and the Conservatives returned to power. The Zinoviev letter is now generally believed to have been a forgery. Zinoviev Letter

The split under MacDonald

The election of May 1929 saw Labour returned for the first time as the largest party in the House of Commons, and Ramsay MacDonald formed a second Liberal-backed government, though Labour's lack of a parliamentary majority again prevented it from carrying out its desired legislative programme. The financial crisis of 1931 caused a disastrous split in the party, with MacDonald and a few senior ministers going into alliance with the Conservatives and Liberals as the "National Government" (August 24, 1931) while most of the party rank-and-file went into opposition under the leadership of first George Lansbury and (from 1935) Clement Attlee. The ILP under James Maxton disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 1932, removing a substantial proportion of the left of the party from membership. While MacDonald's "National Labour" following dwindled to a small parliamentary appendage to the Conservatives, opposition Labour rapidly regained most of the party's former electoral support, and entered the wartime coalition government of Winston Churchill (May 1940) on terms of near equality with the Conservative majority.

Post-War victory to the 1960s

1940] With the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, Labour resolved not to repeat the Liberals' error of 1918, and withdrew from the government to contest the subsequent general election (July 5) in opposition to Churchill's Conservatives. Surprisingly to many (especially overseas) observers, Labour won a landslide majority, reflecting voters' perception of it as the party to carry through wartime promises of reform. The results were announced on July 26; Labour won 48% of the vote and a landslide Parliamentary majority of 146 seats. Clement Attlee's government was one of the most radical British governments of the 20th century. It presided over a policy of selective nationalisation (the Bank of England, coal, electricity, gas, the railways and iron & steel). It developed a "cradle to grave" welfare state under health minister Aneurin Bevan. The party still considers the creation in 1948 of Britain's tax funded National Health Service its proudest achievement. Attlee's government however became split, over, amongst other things, the amount of money Britain was spending on defence (which reached 10% of GDP in 1950 due to the Korean War). Aneurin Bevan eventually quit the government over this issue. The government also faced a fuel crisis and a balance of payments crisis. Labour narrowly lost power to the Conservatives in October 1951, despite winning more votes. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the party became split between moderate modernisers led by Hugh Gaitskell and more traditional socialist elements within the party. This split, and the fact that the public was broadly content with the Conservative governments of the period, kept the party out of power for thirteen years. However, in the early 1960s, a series of scandals such as the Profumo affair engulfed the Conservative government, which damaged its popularity. The Conservative party was also seen as being out of touch with the changing country and the economy began to turn down. Due largely to this, the Labour party returned to government under Harold Wilson in 1964 and remained in power until 1970. 1970] The 1960s Labour government, though claiming to be far less radical on economic policy than its 1940s predecessor, introduced several social changes, such as the partial legalisation of homosexuality and the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1970 general election, Edward Heath's Conservatives narrowly defeated Harold Wilson's government. Wilson's party won power again in February 1974. After possessing a minority government, they achieved a small majority in the October 1974-- also under Harold Wilson.

The 1970s

The 1970s proved to be a disastrous time to be in government, and faced with a world-wide economic downturn and a badly suffering British economy, the Labour Government would be forced to go to the IMF for a loan to ease them through their financial troubles. However, conditions attached to the loan meant the adoption of a more liberal economic programme by the Labour Government, meaning a move away from the party's traditional policy base. The 1970s were also dogged by a host of industrial problems, including widespread strikes and trade union militancy. The Labour Party's close ties to the increasingly unpopular trade unions caused the party to gradually lose support throughout the decade. In 1976, citing his desire to retire on his sixtieth birthday, Wilson stood down as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister, and was replaced by James Callaghan. In the same year as Callaghan became leader, the party in Scotland suffered the breakaway of two MPs into the Scottish Labour Party (SLP). This breakaway was prompted by dissatisfaction with the lack of progress being made by the then Labour government on delivering a devolved Scottish Assembly. Whilst ultimately the SLP proved no real threat to the Labour Party's strong Scottish electoral base it did show that people were beginning to think of breaking with the mainstream UK Labour Party, Ultimately, the economic problems facing the Labour Government of the 1970s, and the political difficulties of Scottish and Welsh devolution, proved too great for it to surmount despite an arrangement negotiated in 1977 with the Liberals known as the Lib-Lab Pact. In 1979, they faced the disastrous "Winter of Discontent", and in the 1979 general election they suffered electoral defeat to the Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher.

The Thatcher years

The aftermath of the election defeat in 1979 provoked a period of bitter internal rivalry in Labour. From the mid 1970s, the party had became bitterly divided between left wingers under Michael Foot and Tony Benn, whose supporters dominated the party organisation at grassroots level, and right wingers under Denis Healey. After the defeat, the left had the upper hand when it asserted that the government had become unpopular because it had alienated its base by compromising, and needed to regain it by moving to a more left-wing policy. The election of Foot to the leadership and the change to a system of leadership elections in which party activists and affiliated trade unions had a vote led to the decision by the Gang of Four (former Labour cabinet ministers) on January 26, 1981 to issue the 'Limehouse Declaration', and then to form the Social Democratic Party. The Gang of Four were Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and William Rodgers. The departure of even more right-wingers further swung the party to the left, but not quite enough to allow Tony Benn to be elected as Deputy Leader when he challenged for the job at the September 1981 party conference. In response to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the party committed itself to "campaign actively" for a United Ireland. United Ireland

1983

Led by Michael Foot, who was increasingly unpopular with the public, the party went into the 1983 general election with a manifesto dominated by the politics of the party's left-wing, but considered by some socialists to be too watered down by Foot's indecisiveness and pressure from the party's right-wing to be truly convincing. The manifesto contained pledges to unilaterally disarm Britain's nuclear deterrent, withdraw from the European Community (EC), and pledged a programme of mass nationalisation of industry. A symptom of the divisions in the party was that the leading members of the right-wing had not resisted the manifesto, because they hoped that what they saw as an impending inevitable landslide defeat would discredit the policies. The 1983 manifesto was famously described by the senior Labour politician Gerald Kaufman as being 'the longest suicide note in history'. The right-wing press wasted no time in attacking the party's manifesto, and Labour's chances of electoral success were further damaged by the fact that the Thatcher government's popularity was on the rise after successfully guiding the country to victory in the Falklands War. This bolstered Thatcher who had been low in the polls due to a severe economic downturn. After suffering a landslide defeat at the 1983 election, Michael Foot immediately resigned. He was replaced by Neil Kinnock, who though initially a firebrand left-winger, had generally supported Foot and was seen as a more pragmatic leader. Through his leadership Kinnock progressively moved the party to the centre. He vastly intensified moves to expel left groups such as the Militant Tendency which represented left-wing views no longer supported by the party leadership, and further changed party policy to support EC membership. From 1985, Peter Mandelson as Director of Communications modernised the party's image.

1987

At the 1987 general election, the party was again defeated in a landslide, but had established itself as the clear challengers to the Conservatives and had fought an effective campaign. Kinnock easily retained the party leadership when challenged from the left in 1988 and continued his reform of the party. The Labour Party ceased to be unilateralist in early 1989, and embarked on a thorough Policy Review.

1992

By the time of the 1992 general election, the party had reformed to such an extent that it was perceived as a credible candidate for government. Most opinion polls during the campaign showed the party with a slight lead over the Conservatives although rarely with a lead sufficient to give a majority. However, the party ended up 8% behind the Conservatives in the popular vote, a result which was considered one of the biggest surprises in British electoral history. In the party's post mortem on why it had lost, it was considered that the 'Shadow Budget' announced by John Smith had opened the way for Conservatives to attack the party for wanting to raise taxes. In addition Neil Kinnock's seeming triumphalism at a party rally in Sheffield eight days before polling day gave the impression that victory had already been achieved. Kinnock resigned after the defeat, blaming the overwhelming preponderance of Conservative-supporting newspapers for Labour's failure. John Smith, despite his involvement with the Shadow Budget, was easily elected to succeed him over Bryan Gould who was identified with the soft left. Smith's leadership saw a degree of tension between those who preferred progressive change and others who identified as 'modernisers' and advocated a further wholesale revision of the party's stance. At the 1993 conference, Smith successfully changed the party rules so that trade unions had less say in the selection of candidates to stand for Parliament by introducing a one member, one vote system, but only just carried the day after a barnstorming speech by John Prescott and compromising on other matters in individual negotiations. However in May 1994, Smith died suddenly from a heart attack.

New Labour

"New Labour" is an alternative name for Labour Party which originated in 1994. The name is primarily used by the party itself in its literature but is also sometimes used by political commentators and the wider media; it was also the basis of a Conservative Party poster campaign of 1997, headlined "New Labour, New Danger". The rise of the name coincided with a rightwards shift of the British political spectrum; for Labour, this was a continuation of the trend that had begun under the leadership of Neil Kinnock. "Old Labour" is sometimes used by commentators to describe the older, more left-wing members of the party, or those with strong Trade Union connections. The name "New Labour" originates from a conference slogan first used by the Labour Party in 1994, which was later seen in a draft manifesto published by the party in 1996, called New Labour, New Life For Britain. However the term was intended to incorporate a wider rebranding of the party in the eyes of the electorate. The new name coincided with the re-writing of Clause IV of the party's constitution in 1995. Peter Mandelson was a senior figure in this process, and exercised a great deal of authority in the party following the death of John Smith and the subsequent election of Tony Blair as party leader. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are most commonly cited as the creators and architects of the New Labour ethos. They were among the most prominent advocates of the right-wing shift in European social democracy during the 1990s, known as the "Third Way". The use of "New" echoes slogans in American politics, particularly those of the Democratic Party, such as Roosevelt's New Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier and Clinton's New Covenant. New Labour (as a series of values) is often characterised as a belief in 'rights and duties', i.e. that a citizen should recognise that s/he possesses responsibilities linked with any legal rights they hold. The concept of a 'stakeholder society' is quite prominent in New Labour thinking. As noted above, New Labour thought also embraces the notion of the "Third Way", although critics pointed to the lack of any concise statement of its meaning, and the term later fell from use. Labour's economic policy sought to balance the laissez-faire capitalism of the Thatcherite era with measures that would lessen or reverse their negative impact on society. One of the most popular policies introduced was Britain's first National Minimum Wage Act. Tony Blair secured the revision of Clause IV of the party constitution, which had been adopted in 1918, and which committed the party to 'the common ownership of the means of production'. This was widely interpreted in the past as a policy of nationalisation: :"To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service." A special conference of the party approved the change in March 1995. The key phrase of the new clause IV is: :"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each one of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." An earlier attempt to modify clause IV, by Hugh Gaitskell, had failed, after which most Labour leaders regarded it as a distraction. Tony Blair was, however, determined to signal his mastery of the party and his complete rejection of those policies, such as nationalisation, which were seen to damage Labour. Hugh Gaitskell|right]] The name change coincided with a dramatic revival of the party's fortunes. The "modernisation" of Labour party policy, and the unpopularity of the Conservative government, greatly increased Labour's appeal to "middle England". The party was concerned not to put off potential voters who had previously supported the Conservatives, and pledged to keep to the spending plans of the previous government, and not to increase the basic rate of income tax. Unexpectedly defeated for a fourth consecutive time in the 1992 election, the party won the 1997 election with a majority of 179. Following a period of government and in particular after a second and third election victory in 2001 and 2005, the name has diminished in significance in British political life. The Labour Party is generally referred to in the media as 'the Government' rather than 'New Labour'. However, the name is still used in party literature. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to give the Bank of England operational independence in setting interest rates, a move that had not been foreshadowed in the manifesto or during the election campaign. Labour held to its pledges to keep to the spending plans set by the Conservatives, causing strain with those members of the party who had hoped that the landslide would lead to more radical policies. Left-wing MPs rebelled when the government moved to cut benefits paid to lone parents in December 1997. The government also promoted wider use of Public Private Partnerships and the Private Finance Initiative, which were opposed particularly by trade unions as a form of privatisation. The party won a further landslide majority (on a 59% turnout) in 2001, the first time ever that the Labour Party won two successive full terms of office. The second term saw increases in public spending, especially on the National Health Service, which the government insisted must be linked to the reforms it was proposing. Spending on education was likewise increased, with schools encouraged to adopt "specialisms". The Prime Minister's spokesman Alastair Campbell was much criticised by education professionals and teachers' trade unions when he stated that this policy meant the end of "the bog-standard comprehensive". Labour's foreign policy kept it close to the United States. Tony Blair managed to persuade Bill Clinton to take a more active role in Kosovo in 1999, and UK forces assisted in the international coalition which attacked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001. The UK was one of the allies of the United States that actually participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.The decision to engage in the conflict was met with much public disapproval, and many called Tony Blair's credibility into question when doubts emerged as to whether intelligence concerning Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was at all reliable. This loss of support contributed to the substantial reduction of Labour's majority in the 2005 general election. The name "New Labour" has been widely satirised. Critics associate the new name with an unprecedented use of 'spin doctoring' in the party's relationship with media. The Conservative Party attempted to tarnish the new Labour tag during the 1997 election campaign using the slogan 'New Labour, New Danger'. After Gordon Brown's budgets became more and more Keynesian, Private Eye began to call the party 'New' Labour. Oddly, it continues to do so even in articles relating an example of privatisation or free-market initiatives by Labour (a frequent theme, especially in Doing the Rounds, the medical column, and In the Back, the investigative section), or other right-wing or neoliberal policies, in which context the ironic inverted commas would be more appropriate around "Labour" than around "New". In left-wing circles, the name "New Labour" or Neo Labour is used pejoratively to refer to the perceived domination of the Labour Party by its right-wing. Indeed, some socialists argue that Labour has become so fond of neo-liberal policies it is Thatcherite rather than Democratic Socialist.

The Labour Party today

Democratic Socialist.]] The party's popularity has declined since 2001. Nevertheless, Labour won the 2005 general election with a reduced majority of 66. Tony Blair has said he will serve a full third term, which implies that he will retire in 2010 at the very latest. It is possible that Blair will retire earlier than that to allow time for his successor to settle in before another election campaign. If the pattern of recent elections is followed, the next election will be held on June 11, 2009 to coincide with elections to the European Parliament. This would suggest the announcement of Blair's resignation by Summer 2008 to allow for the leadership election and a "coronation" at the party conference in the autumn. Following the alleged Granita agreement, Gordon Brown, the long serving Chancellor of the Exchequer, is widely expected to succeed Blair and become Labour Leader and Prime Minister. See also:
- Politics of the United Kingdom

Leaders of the Labour Party since 1906

From 1906 until 1922 the leader was formally "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party".
- Keir Hardie 1906–1908
- Arthur Henderson 1908–1910
- George Nicoll Barnes 1910–1911
- Ramsay MacDonald 1911–1914
- Arthur Henderson 1914–1917
- William Adamson 1917–1921
- John Robert Clynes 1921–1922 From 1922 until 1970, the leader was formally "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party". However these two posts were occasionally split, usually when the party was in government or when the leader of the party did not sit in the House of Commons.
- Ramsay MacDonald 1922–1931
- Arthur Henderson 1931–1932 Arthur Henderson lost his seat in the Commons a couple of months after becoming leader. For the remainder of his leadership, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party was George Lansbury.
- George Lansbury 1932–1935
- Clement Attlee 1935–1955
- Hugh Gaitskell 1955–1963 (died in office)
- Harold Wilson 1963–1976 In 1970, the posts of "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party" were split with the latter having no policy role.
- James Callaghan 1976–1980
- Michael Foot 1980–1983
- Neil Kinnock 1983–1992
- John Smith 1992–1994 (died in office)
- Margaret Beckett 1994–1994 (acting)
- Tony Blair 1994–present

Deputy leaders of the Labour Party since 1922


- John Robert Clynes 1922–1931
- Jointly John Robert Clynes 1931–1932 and William Graham 1931–1932 (died in office)
- Clement Attlee 1932–1935
- Arthur Greenwood 1935–1945
- Herbert Morrison 1945–1955
- James Griffiths 1955–1959
- Aneurin Bevan 1959–1960
- George Brown 1960–1970
- Roy Jenkins 1970–1972
- Edward Short 1972–1976
- Michael Foot 1976–1980
- Denis Healey 1980–1983
- Roy Hattersley 1983–1992
- Margaret Beckett 1992–1994
- John Prescott 1994–present.

See also


- History of British Socialism
- List of organisations associated with the British Labour Party
- List of members of the British Labour Party
- UK topics

Further reading


- Raymond Plant, Matt Beech and Kevin Hickson (2004), The Struggle for Labour's Soul: understanding Labour's political thought since 1945, Routledge
- Roy Hattersley, New Statesman, May 10, 2004, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4687_133/ai_n6152909 'We should have made it clear that we too were modernisers']

External links


- [http://www.labour.org.uk Official website] As of December 13, 2005, down due to Hemel Hempstead explosion
- [http://www.lambethlabour.com The Labour Party in the London Borough of Lambeth]
- [http://www.labourwandsworth.org.uk The Labour Party in the London Borough of Wandsworth]
- [http://www.labour-lini.org.uk Labour in Northern Ireland Campaign]
- [http://www.labour-party.org.uk/ Unofficial website, with an archive of Labour electoral manifestos from 1900-present and a directory of Labour Party websites, including constituency associations]
- [http://spinwatch.server101.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=320 SpinWatch profile - Labour Friends of Israel]
- [http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/ Guardian Unlimited Politics - Special Report: Labour Party]
- [http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317836/us552286/us526499/us526505/us10234373/us703545/us671216/us671218/ LookSmart - Labour Party] directory category
- [http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Parties/Labour/ Open Directory Project - Labour Party] directory category
- [http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/United_Kingdom/Government/Politics/Parties/Labour_Party/ Yahoo! - Labour Party] directory category
- Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom Category:Socialist International ja:労働党 (イギリス)

Republican Party (United States)

:This article is about the modern United States Republican Party. For the earlier Republican Party, see Democratic-Republican Party (United States). The Republican Party, often called the GOP (for "Grand Old Party"), is a political party and is one of the two major political parties in the United States (the other being the Democratic Party). The party was first established in 1854 by Northerners who were opposed to the spread of slavery. In the modern political era, the GOP is usually considered the more socially conservative and economically neoliberal of the two major parties. The current President of the United States, George W. Bush, is the party leader. Since 2002 the Republican Party has held a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It also controls a majority of governorships, and a majority of state legislatures. The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. A political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in Harper's Weekly on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol [http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7]. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots. The party tends to hold both conservative and libertarian stances on social and economic issues. Major policies that the party has recently supported include the 2003 Iraq War and across-the-board tax cuts. It has sought business deregulation, gun ownership rights, free trade and a partial privatization of Social Security. It favors the death penalty, calls for restricted access to abortion, and opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Republican coalition is quite diverse, and "moderate" and "conservative" factions compete for power to frame platforms and select candidates. The "conservatives" are strongest in the South, where they draw support from religious conservatives. The "moderates" tend to dominate the party in New England, and are well represented in all states. In the 1940s and 1950s under such leaders as Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller they usually dominated the presidential wing of the party. Since Barry Goldwater defeated them in 1964 they have been less powerful, though they were well represented in the cabinets of all Republican presidents.

History and trends

Birth

Both Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the honor of setting up the first statewide Republican party organization in 1854. Delegates In Jackson, Michigan on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, as permitted by the proposed Kansas-Nebraska Act.They selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Republican Party is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party drew on the previous traditions of the members, most of whom had been Whigs, and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties especially the Free Soil Party, and American Party. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, which was formed in the 1830s. American Party–1865).]] John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856, using the political slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.

Late nineteenth century

With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction. Republicans at first welcomed president Andrew Johnson; the Radical Republicans thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and some Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. In 1868 the Republicans united around Ulysses S. Grant. In 1872 the party split, as Liberal Republicans detested Grant's corruption and thought that Reconstruction had succeeded and should be ended. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated Horace Greeley, who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was handed to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes who promised, through the unofficial Compromise of 1877 to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964. The GOP, as it was now nicknamed, split into "Stalwart" and "Half-Breed" factions, but policy differences were slight; in 1884, "Mugwump" reformers split off and helped elect Democrat Grover Cleveland. As the Northern post-bellum economy mushroomed with industry and immigration, and prosperous agriculture, support for hard money (i.e. gold), high tariffs, and high benefits for veterans became Republican policy. From 1960 to 1912 the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavernkeepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant the Catholics, especially the Irish, who staffed the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the Copperheads in the North who sympathized with them. Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in 1884 and 1892). 1892 faction of the Republican Party.]]

Early twentieth century

The election of William McKinley in 1896 is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. He relied heavily on industry for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his campaign manager, Ohio's Marcus Hanna, developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival William Jennings Bryan by a large margin. This emphasis on business was in part mitigated by Theodore Roosevelt, McKinley's successor after assassination, who engaged in trust-busting. Roosevelt did not seek another term in 1908, instead endorsing Secretary of War William Howard Taft as his successor, but the widening division between progressive and conservative forces in the party resulted in a third-party candidacy for Roosevelt on the Progressive, or "Bull Moose" ticket in the election of 1912. He finished ahead of Taft, but the split in the Republican vote resulted in a decisive victory for Democrat Woodrow Wilson, temporarily interrupting the Republican era. The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively, but the Great Depression cost Hoover the presidency with the landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican Dwight Eisenhower.

Second half of the twentieth century

Dwight Eisenhower.]] The post-war emergence of the United States as one of two superpowers and rapid social change caused the Republican Party to divide into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in New England) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Midwestern Republicanism active throughout the century. A Republican like U.S. Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose New Deal reforms and continued to champion isolationism. Thomas Dewey represented the Northeastern wing of the party that was closer to liberalism and internationalism. In the end, the isolationists were marginalized by those who supported a strong U.S. role in opposing the Soviet Union throughout the world, as embodied by President Eisenhower. The conservatives made a comeback under the leadership of Barry Goldwater who defeated liberal Nelson Rockefeller as the Republican candidate for the 1964 presidential election. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy. On social issues Goldwater was a libertarian and did not seek support from the social conservatives. One element of the New Deal coalition was the "Solid South", a term describing the Southern states' reliable support for Democratic presidential candidates. Goldwater's electoral success in the South, and Nixon's successful Southern strategy in 1968 and 1972, represented a significant political turnabout, as Southern whites began moving into the party. Later, the Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as abortion, criminal law issues such as abolition of the death penalty, and same-sex marriage drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In The Emerging Republican Majority, Kevin Phillips, then a Nixon strategist, argued (based on the 1968 election results) that support from Southern whites and growth in the Sun Belt, among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral realignment. Today, the South is still solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates, and no Democratic presidential candidate who wasn't from the South has won a presidential election since 1960. realignment, providing conservative influence that continues to the present day.]] Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Scandal forced Nixon to resign under threat of impeachment. Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, a Washington outsider.

Reagan Era, 1980-1992

The trends Phillips descri