British Politics Is Not American

Instant American analysts often misread British politics, primarily because we use our own different political culture to explain theirs. The ruling Labour Party has just suffered a severe double defeat in elections for local county councils and the European Parliament. Drawing on our own personality-driven politics, pundits concentrate on Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Beleaguered Brown indeed is fighting for his political life, but the British political system remains driven by party far more than personality. Brown is very unpopular among voters and activists, but so was his predecessor Prime Minister Tony Blair during his last years in office.
Likewise, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher remained in charge throughout the 1980s even though personally unpopular, a direct reflection of her domineering style. Americans often compared Mrs. Thatcher to her contemporary and friend Pres. Ronald Reagan; a more apt analogous figure is Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson. Brown is in trouble because he is losing control of the Labour structure.
To be sure, British politics in recent decades has become notably more ‘presidential’, with the party leader playing a much more well defined individual role in
the media. The two ‘Harolds’ among relatively recent prime ministers – Tory Macmillan in the 1950s and Labourite Wilson in the 1960s – dramatically projected very distinctive different public images. Yet they were primarily creatures of party organization.
A basic lesson of this election is that in organizational effectiveness the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats clearly have caught up with Labour. During the Blair years, Labour rightly was credited with an exceptionally effective party structure, in particular in exploiting computer technologies.
In this dimension, there are persuasive parallels with Democratic Sen. Barack Obama’s swift ascent to election to the White House. In historical terms, Sen. George McGovern’s extraordinary organization was vital his to very surprising capture of the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. In that pre-Internet era, direct mail was crucial.
Finally, because the U.S. has two dominant parties we too-easily dismiss third parties elsewhere. Various British parties did well in voting for the Europe seats. The Liberal-Democrats were the big winners in local government. Long maligned as marginal, this party since the 1970s has steadily gained support. Labour or Conservative coalition with the Lib-Dems has now emerged as a real possibility.
One key to their success has been the general decline of class voting in Britain, another dimension very different from U.S. culture. Another important factor is sustained commitment to community service, which in turn has translated into an expanding base of support in local governments.
More than in the U.S., there is a sharp distinction between local and national government. British politicians generally spend a career at one level or the other. The long-term growth of Liberal-Democratic support at both levels, however, indicates this divide may well be breaking down.
In the wake of Labour’s defeat, Richard Reeves, Director of London think-tank Demos, has written in the ‘Financial Times’ that the time may be right for basic realignment in British party politics. His article draws persuasive parallels with the way a new Labour Party replaced the Liberals as principal rival to the Conservatives early in the 20th century.
British voters are upset about the economy, financial misbehavior by bankers and members of Parliament, and past support of Bush administration foreign policies, among other things. These do reflect U.S. voter concerns. Party structures and dynamics, however, are very different.
Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘Liberal Politics in Britain’ (Calder Ltd. and Transaction). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu