Advertisement

Should unionists support PR? Electoral systems, party systems and territorial integration in the United Kingdom

  • Klaus StolzEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Conventional wisdom has it that the British first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP) fosters an all-British two-party system which in turn provides territorial integration to a multi-national British state. While the first relationship has been significantly weakened since the early 1970s, the second one lost much of its compelling power at the General Election of 2015. However, as this analysis shows, the integrating function of the British party system has been a myth for quite some time. The FPTP system may have helped to concentrate votes in the two major British parties, yet it has also heavily exaggerated the existing electoral divergence between different parts of the country and has thus contributed considerably to the disintegration of the UK polity. As this effect becomes increasingly obvious, strong commitment to unionist ideology might be expected to induce corresponding support for electoral reform in both the Conservative and the Labour Party. The territorial concentration of their MPs (in part a consequence of this exaggeration), though, means that career self-interest points in the opposite direction.

Keywords

Electoral system Party system Territorial politics Unionism 

References

  1. Aughey, A. 2010. British questions: A non-instrumentalist answer. Parliamentary Affairs 63: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aughey, A. 2013. The British question. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audickas, L., O. Hawkins, and R. Cracknell. 2017 UK Election Statistics 1918–2017. House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, Number CBP7529. Accessed 23 Aug 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Billig, M. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bochsler, D. 2010. Measuring party nationalization: A new Gini-based indicator that corrects for the number of units. Electoral Studies 29: 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogdanor, V. 2009. The New British Constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bradbury, J., and J. Mitchell. 2005. Devolution: Between governance and territorial politics. Parliamentary Affairs 58 (2): 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bulpitt, J. 1983. Territory and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cairney, P. 2016. The Scottish Parliament election 2016: Another momentous event but dull campaign. Scottish Affairs 25: 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colomer, J. 2005. It’s parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger’s laws upside down). Political Studies 53: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowley, P., and D. Kavanagh. 2016. The British General Election of 2015. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtice, J., and M. Steed. 1986. Proportionality and exaggeration in the British electoral system. Electoral Studies 5: 209–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunleavy, P. 2005. Facing up to multi-party politics: How partisan dealignment and PR voting have fundamentally changed Britain’s party system. Parliamentary Affairs 58: 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, R., and M. Goodwin. 2014. Revolt on the Right: Explaining the Support for the Radical Right in Britain. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, M. 2011. Political Traditions and UK Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassan, G., and E. Shaw. 2012. The Strange Death of Labour Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hayton, R. 2016. The UK independence party and the politics of englishness. Political Studies Review 14: 400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston, R., and C. Pattie. 2011. The British general election of 2010: A three-party contest—or three two-party contests? The Geographical Journal 177: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston, R.J., C.J. Pattie, and J.G. Allsopp. 1988. A Nation Dividing? The Electoral Map of Great Britain, 1979–1987. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Keating, M. 1994. The union under strain: Constitutional reform and the territorial state. In Changing Conceptions of Constitutional Government, ed. H. Kastendiek, and R. Stinshoff, 23–48. Bochum: Dr. Brockmeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Keating, M. 2008. Thirty years of territorial politics. West European Politics 31: 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laakso, M., and R. Taagepera. 1979. Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macwhirter, I. 2015. Tsunami: Scotland’s Democratic Revolution. Glasgow: Cargo.Google Scholar
  24. Madgwick, P., and R. Rose. 1982. Introduction. In The Territorial Dimension in United Kingdom Politics, ed. P. Madgwick, and R. Rose, 1–6. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marquand, D. 1988. The Unprincipled Society. New Demands and Old Politics. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  26. Marquand, D. 1991. The Progressive Dilemma: From Lloyd George to Kinnock. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  27. Marsh, D., and M. Hall. 2007. The British political tradition: Explaining the fate of new labour’s constitutional reform agenda. British Politics 2 (2): 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLean, I., and A. McMillan. 2005. State of the union: Unionism and the alternatives in the United Kingdom since 1707. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Midwinter, A., M. Keating, and J. Mitchell. 1991. Politics and Public Policy in Scotland. Houndmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell, J. 2009. Devolution in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moran, M. 2017. The End of British Politics?. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgenstern, S., J. Polga-Hecimovich, and P.M. Siavelis. 2014. Seven imperatives for improving the measurement of party nationalization with evidence from Chile. Electoral Studies 33: 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nairn, T. 1977. The break-up of Britain. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  34. Nairn, T. 2000. After Britain: New labour and the return of Scotland. London: Granta.Google Scholar
  35. Nairn, T. 2007. Union on the rocks? New Left Review 43 (1): 117–132.Google Scholar
  36. Perryman, M. 2009. Breaking up Britain: Four nations after a union. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, R. 1988. Beyond Westminster and Whitehall. London: Unwin-Hyman.Google Scholar
  38. Stolz, K. 2009. Towards a Regional Political Class? Professional Politicians and Regional Institutions in Catalonia and Scotland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, P. 1979. The changing geography of representation in Britain. Area 11: 289–294.Google Scholar
  40. Wright, T., and A. Gamble. 2010. Commentary: The end of Britain? Political Quarterly 71 (1): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wyn Jones, R., G. Lodge, C. Jeffery, G. Gottfried, R. Scully, A. Henderson and D. Wincott. 2013. England and its Two Unions. The Anatomy of a Nation and its Discontents. London: IPPR. http://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2013/07/england-two-unions_Jul2013_11003.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2017.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universitȁt ChemnitzChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations