My spectrum

I've spoken to my politics lecturer about what spectrum I should use when addressing my question. He advised that I do one that looks specifically at my area of interest which is the parties attitude to social policy. Therefore, I have decided to go with a two point spectrum as seen in my last piece of research. This means I will be able to look at the question with a broader view.

The spectrum I have decided on is the vertical axis being athoritarian at the top and libertarian at the bottom and the horizontal axis being interventional in the publics social life on the left and non-interventional in the publics social life on the right. This my lecturer would suggest would work as left wing parties would traditionally intervene in order to bring up the minimum standard of living of the public. This works with conservatives and doesn't come up with the problem Robert Leach finds with the scale revolutionary and reactionary as one nation tories would intervene more in the publics social life than a Tory such as Thatcher. This is shown with Disraeli, a one nation Tory, saying "power has only one duty - to secure the social welfare of the people." (http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Power_has_only_one_duty_-_to_secure_the_social_welfare_of_the_People./152235/

In order to decide the measuring points on my scale Felix has suggested that I get manifestos from different parties and then get people with different politucal views to mark whether they think that is left or right way of thinking. When this is done I will see what is the most common left, right and central. This will mean my ideas won't sway how I measure the parties on the scale and will give a more accurate picture of where the parties are on the scale.

Another view of the spectrum

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

UK Parties 2010 General Election

Firstly, a few words about popular political terms (in case you haven't read the rest of our website).

Once you accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position, the extreme right refers to extremely liberal economics that may be practised by social authoritarians or social libertarians.

Similarly, the extreme left identifies a strong degree of state economic c

ontrol, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies. It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear. It's easy to see how the term national socialism came into being. The uncomfortable reality is that much of their support comes from f

ormer Labour voters.

This mirrors France's National Front. In running some local governments, they reinstated certain welfare measures which their Socialist predecessors had abandoned. Like similar authoritarian parties that have sprung up around Europe, they have come to be seen in some quarters as champions of the underdog, as long as the underdog isn't Black, Arab, gay or Jewish ! With mainstream Social Democratic parties adopting - reluctantly or enthusiastically - the new economic libertarian orthodoxy (neo-liberalism), much o

f their old economic baggage has been pinched by National Socialism. Election debates between mainstream parties are increasingly about managerial competence rather than any clash of vision and fundamental difference in economic direction.

The UK Independence Party might be described as BNP Lite, with a more well-heeled social base of generally older hardline Tories unhappy with their former party's drift in a more socially liberal, Europe-friendly direction. Like the BNP, UKI

P is sympathetic to the reintroduction of capital punishment. UKIP's economics, however, are well to the right.

The socially liberal Greens by strong contrast, have shifted from the single-issue tendency of their formative years and sprouted a comprehensive left manifesto, appealing to a diametrically different kind of disenchanted Labour voter: stro

ng on civil liberties, social justice, prison reform and the welfare state; passionately opposed to unfettered market forces, foreign invasions and all things nuclear.

This time around the somewhat mercurial Liberal Democrats look like Green Lite beside the Labour and Conservative parties. Their economic pitch is left of Labour's, with their Treasury spokesman hitting a recent Guardian front page he

adline Cable attacks 'nauseating businessmen'. One imagines, though, that he must have worked with a few of them in his previous job as Shell's chief economist. The LibDems maintain considerable distance from both the main parties on the social scale, with a rehabilitative approach to crime, a far greater concern for civil liberties ie curbs on CCTV, expansion of the Freedom of Information Act and the reduction of pre-charge detention to a maximum of 14 days. The only one of the big three parties to ha

ve opposed the invasion of Iraq, the LibDems have been astonishingly coy about where they stand on the UK's Trident nuclear arsenal. Their candidates somewhat self-consciously rattle off Trident as one of many expenditures that should be looked at in these difficult economic times. Presumably afraid of being labelled soft on defence, the LibDems haven't dared to argue robustly against Britain's "independent deterrent", which is actually linked to the US nuclear command system. Labour and the Conservatives are committed

to its replacement at a cost of a more than £80 billion, including maintenance and running expenditure. Given that an impressive group of senior military officers deemed Trident "irrelevant" in a letter to The Times on 16 January 2009, the LibDems have missed a chance to do the public and the party a favour by giving the issue real prominence. Labour and the Conservatives won't, since they are in agreement on this colossal expenditure.

With its commitment to scrap ID cards and the National Identity Register, reduce pre-charge detention to 28 days and other civil libertarian concerns, the Conservative Party seems willing to accept some haemorrhage of support from the old tweed and twinset guard. As they shuffle off to UKIP, the often tieless David Cameron can appeal to more socially liberal voters with an appetite for the full-throttle neoliberal economic policies that would inevitably follow their election. The new "progressive" Tory party, as revealed in a recent Financial Times survey, remains one with a large number of climate change deniers. Despite recent history, most in the party are opposed to all but the lightest fiscal regulation, and don't want to see any cap at all on corporate bonuses.

There's considerable truth in the assertion that it's easier to be socially liberal in opposition than in office. Nevertheless Labour - or is it still New Labour? - has moved markedly towards a more authoritarian position than the circumstances justify. Along with the indefinite retention of DNA profiles of people arrested but not convicted and the 42-day pre-charge detention, the party also continues to champion ID cards, an identity database and much else that has upset civil libertarians. While fiscally there are hints that the party is now reaching back to its core values, under Blair and Brown Labour has gone to extraordinary lengths to privatise the economy and nationalise the public.

What post-1980s elections demonstrate is passionate debate - but only within constantly narrowing parameters. The big clashes of vision are regrettably absent. Economic power has transcended political power, to the detriment of democracy. Between the big three, there's no ideological argument about whether the prevailing economic orthodoxy is best for Britain, but simply which of them can make market forces work best. Afghanistan might be mentioned, but only in terms of funding: not whether the UK should be there. Climate change crops up, but not whether a deregulated growth economy is compatible with the ecological imperative. Saving the NHS is an important campaign issue, but not the fundamental question of whether public funds should be turned into private profit. The "big issues" are things like the national insurance rise which, as The Observer's economics editor has pointed out, would cost M&S only two thirds of what the company shelled out for its new chief executive's hello package.

Underlining the absence of substantial differences on the economic scale in particular, the public – and even the commentators – refer more than ever before to the three main leaders rather than to their parties. We know more about their personal lives; less about concrete policy. The tv debates, as welcome as they might be on some levels, have helped bring about a more presidential approach to politics. A presidential political campaign tends to highlight the style of the candidates rather than the substance of their policies. It's a handy diversion in the absence of profound ideological distinctions.

How The Parties Have Shifted

The political spectrum

In order to start looking at whether or not political ideologies within the three main parties has changed (point 1 in my plan of research) I've decided that firstly I'm goingto have to define the politcal spectrum. This will allow me to place them on there at a beginning point and then see how they have changed.





I have found a useful book for this: Robert Leach, Political ideology in Britain (Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Edition edition 2009), 10 - 11


These pages go into how to class ideologies on a spectrum of left and right. It also gives different ideas of spectrums. I will consider all these ideas and then search for some more to back them up and then decide which one I believe to be most relevant to the UK to use in my report.

It tells me how it is the "oldest ways of classifying ideologies" which comes from the "French Revolution, where the most revolutionary groups sat on the left and the more conservative or reactionary groups sat on the left". This is where the idea of the first scale comes from; Revolutionary groups being left and reaction groups being right. However, if we look at Lenin in Russia, The Bolsheviks continued to be regarded as left after they siezed power and established a new social and politcal system. This problem can also be seen with the radical right. "almost a contradiction in terms if the 'right' means opposition to change". Margaret Thatcher changed much in the UK, but she was considred further to the right than the 'One Nation' Conservatives within her party. Therefore, in modern terms I do not believe this scale can be used as it is not accurate within modern politics.

Another way it gives for interpreting the left-right scale is "in terms of attitudes to authority". Those who believe in individual liberty are on the left and those wanting discipline and order are on the right. This, as Robert Leach points out, also has its problems. Anarchists and communists are regarded as left and yet they have very different ideas on authority. Totalitarianism in the post-war period implied noth communism and facism which would usually both be at opposite ends of the scale. Therefore, again this spectrum does not work.

The spectrum can also be defined in terms of attitudes towards state intervention in the economy. Left would be ossociated with collectivism and right with the free market. This Robert Leach believes to be the most effective spectrum. he says it "is consistant with the description of communists and socialist as 'left' regardless of whether they constituted the establishment or the opposition, and also consistant with the common designation of free market Conservatives as more 'right wing' than the more interventionist 'One Nation' Conservatives." However, again he points out its flaws: "Fascism, commonly placed on the far right, favoured protection and substantial state direction rather than the free market."

These ideas will contribute to section 1 of my research plan as well as section 3. This is just one view and so I will collect together a few more before I decide on what politcal scale is most relevent to my report.

Plan for research

In order to see how I'm going to go about researching the question I've decided to look at it as if someone was going to argue yes; what the steps would be to proving it? Then the critisisms that would suggest that that wasn't the case will come from the flaws I find whilst I evaluate the evidence. This will guide my research so that I can consider every angle. I will have to make sure I spend an equal amount of time considering the flaws of the argument so that I don't end up with a biassed view. During my research I'll keep this in mind.

So the first thing I'd have to prove to answer the question as yes would be:

1. That their government policies have changed - To prove this I'd look at each of the main parties manifestos seperately and then compare them. Manifestos are where they put down all the policies they would like to bring in if they become Government so this will give an accurate idea about if all their policies have become the same. My question is looking at whether or not since Thatcher being the Prime Minister parties have moved to the centre of the political spectrum. Therefore I'll look at their party manifestos in the 1979 general election, where Margaret Thatcher won the election and the manifestos where Tony Blair won the election 1997. Therefore I'll be able to compare the differences in each party in order to see what changes occured after Thatcherism and determine if it actually made a difference.
2. Whilst in government the policies they brought in have changed - I understand that when a party gains power they do not always carry out what they state in their manifestos as sometimes they can realise a policy isn't workable or situations in the country dictate something is brought in out of necessity. As a result, just giving manifestos as proof is not enough to show they've changed. Therefore, I'm going to have to look at what they do when they actually are in power. For the Conservative and Labour party this will be substantially easier than with the Liberal Democrat party. This is due to the Liberal Democrats only forming in 1988¹. This means that until the current coalition they have not been in power before the current coalition. Therefore I'll just have to compare what they've done to the coaltion to what their manifesto said they'll do. Again I will look at when they were in power before Thatcherism and after. Conservatives being 1979 with Thatcher and 2010 David Cameron, Labour being 1976 with James Callaghan and 1997 with Tony Blair.
3. The policy in each party has moved central in the political spectrum - The question states each party has moved central. To show this I'd first have to look into what the UK's political spectrum is. What is left? What is right? And then determine what is central. I will then have to look at the history of each party at what point on this scale were the at before Thatcherism? At what point could you place them after Thatcherism? Once I've looked at their original ideologies I can determine whether they've moved more central - have they become less extreme?
   

I realise that when conducting my research this way I will be looking for the evidence that the answers to the question is yes. Therefore, I may be more likely to get evidence that suggests that this is the case and this would not be a fair analysis on the question. As a result, when addressing each of these points I will also search for the opposite position at the same time, looking for evidence for both sides so that I can evaluate each piece of evidence fairly and so decide where the parties are on the spectrum accurately. Moreover, whilst I'm looking at the evidence I am aware I may find flaws in the argument meaning I may find another stage that needs to be proved when answering the question and so I may need to add to the above. Another thing I will keep in mind.

¹ (http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=4&item=history)

A new party

The winter of 1987-88 saw a lengthy period of tortuous negotiations between the two parties. The new party's constitution and even its name were the subjects of intense discussion, as was the question of whether an initial policy statement was needed and, if so, what it should say. The whole process was almost brought to an end by the farcical episode of the 'dead parrot' policy document, a vacuous sub-Thatcherite platform which the two leaders, Steel and Maclennan, should have known would have been unacceptable from the beginning. )

Nevertheless, merger was eventually approved by a majority vote of both parties and the new Social & Liberal Democrats came into being on 3 March 1988. Paddy Ashdown was elected leader of the merged party in July 1988; Roy Jenkins (Lord Jenkins of Hillhead) led the party in the House of Lords. David Owen led a significant faction of Social Democrats who would not be swayed from their opposition to merger, but after a couple of reasonable by-election results, Owen's 'continuing SDP' declined into irrelevance and wound itself up in 1990.

After a difficult birth, the new party suffered from a troubled infancy. There was even confusion over its name. Initially known as the Social & Liberal Democrats, the abbreviation SLD was not popular, while the agreed short title - Democrats - seemed glib. In 1989 the party voted to adopt the name Liberal Democrats.)

Project title

After thinking over what subjects areas I would find interesting to base this project on I decided to look at political parties in the UK.
My first idea of the question being: "Have the major political parties in the UK moved towards the centre of the political spectrum?"
However, on reflection I saw that this could be quite broad on a time scale. Due to reading I'd previously done in order to decide on what topic to do (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3670179.stm) I decided to change my title to "Have the major political parties in the UK moved towards the centre of the political spectrum since Thatcherism?" This seems to be a contested viewpoint making my research a lot easier to conduct and my essay more focused.