This is kind of a simplistic post in which I ask more than answer a question. Â But I am quite interested in the answer – and its kind of more abstract party political than some of our usual posts, but please bear with it – and drop an answer in the comments!
As a PhD student, I also do some part-time work as a Teaching Assistant, taking first year classes on politics. So, this week – their mid-semester break – I’ve been spending my time marking 60-odd essays of varying quality.
Anyway, they were on several different topics, but one of the questions was “how many parties are important in the British party system?”. And I had a wide spread of answers – incorporating everything from one (a party in government) to seven (for various reasons) and many in between. Â I had students arguing that only Labour and the Conservatives were important (for historic reasons) and that, even though they were in government, the Lib Dems were not important. I had importance stretching to all parties with MPs. Indeed, I had so many different interpretations of what important meant (size of party on seats/ votes/ membership; position as government/ opposition; devolved status; influence on policy; blackmail potential) that I wasn’t even sure what important meant. The thing is, I guess, is that there is no right or wrong answer. As long as they could define important in a realistic and sensible way and make a coherent argument as to why parties were important, they got a good mark.
But the issue has become more interesting to me, because although I don’t think there is a right answer, I wondered what folk thought. Now obviously the question has its flaws (“British party system” implies only Westminster, but they are studying British politics, so that’s why) but I wondered if we could discount any parties from being important? I mean, obviously, with 650 MPs, Westminster is a big place, and if you have less than 10 MPs (so, everyone bar Lab/Con/LD) you don’t have much influence. But then you can make the case that only the government have any power (and therefore importance…) but that discounts the second largest party – and counts the third largest! Â You can see the issue. And why should we use representation as a yardstick anyway? In a democracy surely views are still important whether or not they are represented in Parliament, which would make the parties without representation contenders to be “important”? And though parties like the BNP and UKIP have no MPs, they do have Lords, MEPs or councillors, so they have representation, just not in the House of Commons.
I guess I’ve opened up a can of worms. And as I said above, I’m not sure there is an answer to this, but I’m interested to know what readers think. Where do we draw the line? Which parties in Britain are important – and which are not? And how do we define important anyway?
#1 by Kate Gordon on October 28, 2010 - 2:45 pm
Surely the real question is ‘whose votes are not important?’ The political parties with power, however limited, are important. However, some voters in our so-called democracy have effectively no vote due to constitutional boundaries etc. Voting for smaller parties such as the Greens can influence the policy of the ruling parties but I frequently hear people of all ages saying “I don’t vote because it doesn’t make any difference”. At the last election there was a clear indication from the electorate that the voting system needs updated to reflect both the attitudes and the technology of the 21st century. We should all be fighting for a modern democracy where every vote counts and ‘unelected coalitions’ (really just deals or at best alliances) should not be possible without a referendum. In a democracy the people at the table should reflect the voters wishes – then the work of government and steering the civil servants should begin.
#2 by James on October 28, 2010 - 2:48 pm
I agree that we need fair votes, but I think it’s been a while since folk voted Green to influence other parties – now they’re voting Green because they want to elect Greens, and they’re increasingly getting what they want.
#3 by Kate Gordon on October 28, 2010 - 3:48 pm
Yes it is a while! But the importance of the Greens, or any other party, in parliament should directly reflect the number of votes they get. That is most important until we get a fairer voting system. Worrying too much about party allegiances plays into the hands of the main parties!
#4 by Indy on October 28, 2010 - 5:47 pm
Taking the question literally you could, for illustrative purposes, show your pupils a list of all the “Parties” or individuals who stood on the regional list in Glasgow in 2007.
Then you could say that the Communist Party of Britain, Independent Green Voice, Nine Percent Growth party, Publican Party, Scotland Agains Crooked Lawyers, Scottish Voice, UKIP, James Cruikshank, Asif Nadir and Muhammad Shoaib really don’t count cause they all got less than 1000 votes.
The BNP, Christian Peoples Alliance, Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”, Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party, Scottish Socialist Party, Scottish Unionist Party, Socialist Labour Party and Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement probably don’t count either but may count a wee bit more than the first mob.
The ones who did count – or had enough votes for them counted to get candidates elected – were the SNP, Tories, Greens and Lib Dems.
You may also wish to reflect that, while PR is a Good Thing, we may need to increase the deposit to reduce the number of names on the ballot paper…..
#5 by James on October 28, 2010 - 6:04 pm
Much as list votes for Labour are wasted in Glasgow, I don’t think it’s fair to say Labour don’t count.
And increased deposits won’t stop abuse: increased signatures would.
#6 by Kate Gordon on October 28, 2010 - 6:55 pm
Glasgow region is a good illustration. If minority parties want to take part then why not? The voters decided this issue. But if these minority parties have candidates and similar numbers of voters in other regions then the accumulated votes should be the valid result. Every vote should count. Perhaps what we need is an abstention box.
#7 by Indy on October 28, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Ha ha well spotted – that must have been a Freudian oversight
#8 by richard on October 29, 2010 - 2:33 pm
The question of which parties are important immediately raises the question: “important to who (or what)?
If you mean important to a particular person, then obviously everyone’s going to have their own answer. If you mean important the institution, then every party is equally important. After all, the whole point of democracy is to let everyone have their say. The idea of increasing deposits to keep out the little guy goes totally against this, and smacks of a “boys’ club”.
I’m sick of people complaining that politicians are no good and how they don’t want to vote for anyone. The whole point of the system, whichever form it takes, is that if you don’t like it, you can get involved and help to change it.
#9 by Indy on October 29, 2010 - 4:41 pm
I do not suggest increasing deposits” to keep the little guy out” but to dissuade the lunatic fringe. On reflection it probably is a better solution to increase the number of signatures required for the nomination papers.
#10 by James on October 29, 2010 - 4:46 pm
I do think that’s best. It’d stop the Adam Lyall Witchery Tour Party and probably the Nazis, but not the Christians or UKIP, for instance.