How the British and American Political Systems Are Trading Places

As the American political system is growing more rigid and centralized, Britain’s is becoming more fluid and fragmented.

A car travels along Westminster Bridge past the Houses of Parliament on March 27, 2012 in London, England. 
Getty Images
Add to Briefcase
Ronald Brownstein
Jan. 13, 2014, midnight

LON­DON — When the Brit­ish House of Com­mons denied Prime Min­is­ter Dav­id Camer­on au­thor­ity last Au­gust to bomb Syr­ia, the up­ris­ing was even more stun­ning than the sim­ul­tan­eous re­bel­lion against Pres­id­ent Obama over the same is­sue in Con­gress. While le­gis­lat­ive de­feats are re­l­at­ively com­mon for Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents, the Brit­ish sys­tem usu­ally provides so much lever­age to its prime min­is­ters that the po­s­i­tion has been de­scribed as an “elect­- ive dic­tat­or­ship.”

The Brit­ish vote on Syr­ia was a flat re­jec­tion of Middle East in­ter­ven­tion and a re­buke to 10 Down­ing Street. But it was also something more: evid­ence of a trend to­ward the splin­ter­ing of polit­ic­al in­flu­ence in the na­tion that has provided the world per­haps its pree­m­in­ent mod­el of a par­lia­ment­ary sys­tem that con­cen­trates power in the hands of a single gov­ern­ing party.

Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Labour Leader Ed Miliband are featured on Politico Top Trumps cards. (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images) Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

That con­sol­id­a­tion of power, which for gen­er­a­tions has defined the Brit­ish polit­ic­al sys­tem, is un­der siege from a con­ver­gence of factors that in­clude dwind­ling voter loy­alty to the two ma­jor al­tern­at­ives; di­min­ish­ing party dis­cip­line in­side Par­lia­ment; and the rising prob­ab­il­ity that no single party will win enough seats to con­trol the Com­mons without for­ging a mul­ti­party co­ali­tion. “For a long time, we were a strong, cent­ral­ized, ex­ec­ut­ive state,” says Peter Rid­dell, dir­ect­or of the Lon­don-based In­sti­tute for Gov­ern­ment, an in­de­pend­ent think tank. “Now you are talk­ing about a much more “¦ un­pre­dict­able elect­or­al struc­ture.” Prime Min­is­ter Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy Prime Min­is­ter Nick Clegg and La­bour Lead­er Ed Miliband are fea­tured on Politico Top Trumps cards. (Chris­toph­er Fur­long/Getty Im­ages)

From the out­set, those de­cent­ral­iz­ing forces have shaped Camer­on’s ten­ure as prime min­is­ter. In 2010, voters ous­ted the Labor Party, which had con­trolled the gov­ern­ment since 1997, but the elect­or­ate did not provide enough seats to Camer­on’s Con­ser­vat­ives for an out­right ma­jor­ity in the Com­mons. That forced Camer­on to ne­go­ti­ate a gov­ern­ing agree­ment with the Lib­er­al Demo­crats, Bri­tain’s ec­lect­ic, cent­rist third party, and to form Bri­tain’s first peace­time co­ali­tion gov­ern­ment since the De­pres­sion.

Over­all, ob­serv­ers and par­ti­cipants alike say the co­ali­tion has held to­geth­er bet­ter than most ex­pec­ted, par­tic­u­larly on the core fisc­al choices the part­ners faced. But enough dif­fer­ences have opened between them — and, even more im­port­ant, between Camer­on and his party’s con­ser­vat­ive van­guard — that Brit­ish polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists say this ses­sion of Par­lia­ment is on track to pro­duce the most le­gis­lat­ive re­bel­lions with­in the rul­ing gov­ern­ment since World War II.

And while the Brit­ish elect­or­ate over the past cen­tury has only rarely denied one party an ab­so­lute ma­jor­ity, many here be­lieve it may be­come more the rule than the ex­cep­tion. Voters are in­creas­ingly drift­ing away from the two prin­cip­al parties to­ward al­tern­at­ives such as the UK In­de­pend­ence Party, which has shown in­creas­ing strength be­hind an agenda centered on nativ­ism, isol­a­tion­ism, and cul­tur­al con­ser­vat­ism. “We may find we are in an age where we don’t [gen­er­ate] ma­jor­ity gov­ern­ments in a sys­tem that was al­ways de­signed to pro­duce clear out­comes,” says Gra­ham Brady, a Con­ser­vat­ive MP.

All of these in­ter­sect­ing de­vel­op­ments are signs that in the ba­sic op­er­a­tion of their polit­ic­al sys­tems, the United States and the United King­dom may be trad­ing places. Even as the Amer­ic­an sys­tem is grow­ing more ri­gid and cent­ral­ized, Bri­tain’s is be­com­ing more flu­id and frag­men­ted. The U.S. con­sti­tu­tion­al struc­ture, de­signed to en­cour­age com­prom­ise, is in­creas­ingly gen­er­at­ing only stale­mate and con­flict; mean­while, the Brit­ish sys­tem, de­signed to pro­duce de­cis­ive out­comes and un­waver­ing dir­ec­tion, is now de­mand­ing more com­prom­ise and ne­go­ti­ation, both with­in and among the parties.

Put an­oth­er way, while the U.S. is ac­quir­ing more of the char­ac­ter­ist­ics of a clas­sic par­lia­ment­ary sys­tem, Bri­tain may be shed­ding some of them. “The pic­ture of Brit­ish polit­ics with which you and I both grew up needs to be re­touched or even re­drawn,” says An­thony King, a Uni­versity of Es­sex pro­fess­or of gov­ern­ment and a lead­ing stu­dent of Bri­tain’s sys­tem.

For most of Amer­ic­an his­tory, the U.S. polit­ic­al sys­tem has been defined by weak, ideo­lo­gic­ally di­verse parties that only lightly held to­geth­er a wide range of com­pet­ing views and con­test­ing camps. In Con­gress, for gen­er­a­tions, the di­vi­sions with­in the parties — say, between se­greg­a­tion­ist South­ern Demo­crats and the North­ern lib­er­als pro­mot­ing in­teg­ra­tion, or between Re­pub­lic­ans who held isol­a­tion­ist and in­ter­ven­tion­ist views on for­eign af­fairs — were as poin­ted as the dif­fer­ences between them. When Richard Rus­sell and Hubert Humphrey were both Sen­ate Demo­crats, and Jesse Helms and Jac­ob Javits were both Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans, party dis­cip­line was a con­tra­dic­tion in terms, and ac­com­plish­ing any­thing in Wash­ing­ton re­quired an enorm­ous amount of bar­gain­ing.

But since the 1960s, both parties have ex­per­i­enced a geo­graph­ic, cul­tur­al, and ra­cial “great sort­ing out” that has left each side’s elect­or­al co­ali­tion much more ideo­lo­gic­ally ho­mo­gen­ous (es­pe­cially the GOP’s). In Con­gress, party-line vot­ing has soared, and the num­ber of ideo­lo­gic­al out­liers — mod­er­ate Re­pub­lic­ans or con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crats — has dwindled. At the bal­lot box, split-tick­et vot­ing has fallen, as more Amer­ic­ans vote a straight party line in pres­id­en­tial and con­gres­sion­al races.

The res­ult is a polit­ic­al sys­tem that many ob­serv­ers have de­scribed as in­creas­ingly par­lia­ment­ary, defined by an un­re­lent­ing com­pet­i­tion between two parties that have grown more ant­ag­on­ist­ic and cent­rally con­trolled even as their com­pet­ing vis­ions for the coun­try have be­come more an­ti­thet­ic­al. This has pro­duced an en­vir­on­ment of im­plac­able con­front­a­tion, in which Wash­ing­ton has struggled to reach con­sensus even on is­sues long con­sidered less par­tis­an, such as ag­ri­cul­ture policy.

Across the At­lantic, the United King­dom is mov­ing in the op­pos­ite dir­ec­tion. For most of its mod­ern his­tory, it provided the world’s pree­m­in­ent mod­el of a tightly con­trolled par­lia­ment­ary sys­tem. As one Brit­ish polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist wrote in 2011, “The [Brit­ish] mod­el is re­cog­nized the world over as de­liv­er­ing strong, stable one-party gov­ern­ment.” One key to that mod­el has been a leg­al struc­ture that provides con­trol of the ex­ec­ut­ive branch to the party that holds the ma­jor­ity in the House of Com­mons. A second has been a polit­ic­al cul­ture that has de­livered lock­step levels of party dis­cip­line in­side that le­gis­lature. The third has been an elect­or­al sys­tem that, since the turn of the 20th cen­tury, has al­most al­ways provided one of the two ma­jor parties — Labor on the left and the Con­ser­vat­ives on the right — enough seats in peace­time to con­trol a Com­mons ma­jor­ity and form a gov­ern­ment without need­ing to ne­go­ti­ate a co­ali­tion with smal­ler parties, much less each oth­er.

This con­ver­gence of factors has af­forded Brit­ish prime min­is­ters as dif­fer­ent as Mar­garet Thatch­er and Tony Blair al­most un­trammeled free­dom to im­ple­ment their agen­das without ef­fect­ive op­pos­i­tion. That tend­ency has in­spired the de­scrip­tion of Bri­tain’s sys­tem as an elect­ive dic­tat­or­ship, not to men­tion the wist­ful jeal­ousy of Amer­ic­an pres­id­ents con­front­ing a con­sti­tu­tion­al struc­ture that presents them with trap­doors at al­most every turn. One meas­ure of how much lever­age the sys­tem has tra­di­tion­ally af­forded the prime min­is­ter is that Camer­on’s loss on Syr­ia rep­res­en­ted the most con­sequen­tial Com­mons de­feat for a Brit­ish PM on an is­sue of war and peace since 1782, when weary Brit­ish par­lia­ment­ari­ans re­jec­ted Lord North’s re­quest to con­tin­ue fight­ing the Amer­ic­an Re­volu­tion after the de­feat at York­town.

But like waves against a sea­wall, big changes in Brit­ish polit­ics and life are crash­ing against that fort­ress of cent­ral­ized au­thor­ity. The longest-de­vel­op­ing of these changes is the de­clin­ing elect­or­al dom­in­ance of the two ma­jor parties.

In 1951, the Labor and Con­ser­vat­ive parties won a com­bined 97 per­cent of the votes cast in the par­lia­ment­ary elec­tion. That dropped to just be­low 90 per­cent by the 1960s, and to around 70 to 75 per­cent in most of the elec­tions from the 1970s through the 1990s. Their com­bined share fell again to about two-thirds in the 2005 elec­tion, when the Labor gov­ern­ment led by Blair won its third and fi­nal term. By 2010, when Camer­on ous­ted Gor­don Brown, who had suc­ceeded Blair as prime min­is­ter, the two parties shared a post­war low of 65.1 per­cent of the total bal­lots cast. About two-thirds of the re­main­ing votes went to the Lib­er­al Demo­crats, the cent­rist party that joined the Con­ser­vat­ives to form a gov­ern­ing co­ali­tion, with the rest dif­fus­ing among smal­ler al­tern­at­ives, in­clud­ing na­tion­al­ist parties in Scot­land and Wales.

The same broad dis­il­lu­sion­ment with polit­ic­al lead­er­ship vis­ible in the United States since the 1960s partly ex­plains the de­cline of the ma­jor Brit­ish parties. But most ana­lysts here place more weight on the fray­ing links between class, cul­ture, and polit­ic­al al­le­gi­ance. Class dis­tinc­tions have of­ten ap­peared more overt and im­mov­able in Bri­tain than in the United States, and the U.K.’s two ma­jor parties re­flec­ted that, with Labor or­gan­ic­ally rooted in the work­ing class, and the Tor­ies re­ly­ing on votes from the middle class and above.

Tim Bale, the au­thor of The Con­ser­vat­ive Party From Thatch­er to Camer­on and a pro­fess­or of polit­ics at Queen Mary Uni­versity of Lon­don, is one of many Brit­ish ana­lysts who de­scribe the parties’ polit­ic­al sup­port through most of the 20th cen­tury as “tri­bal” in its pre­dict­ab­il­ity and dur­ab­il­ity. “You were either one or the oth­er, with class dom­in­at­ing polit­ic­al pref­er­ences,” he said. But those pref­er­ences are much less re­li­able today. “Voters are so much more volat­ile, and they are in­creas­ingly not tied to either of the two ma­jor parties,” Bale says.

Class al­le­gi­ance still shapes polit­ic­al loy­alty more in the United King­dom than it does in the United States, but the Brit­ish sys­tem has seen the same “class in­ver­sion” that has re­shaped Amer­ic­an polit­ics. Like the Amer­ic­an Demo­crat­ic Party, the Labor Party saw its sup­port grow (par­tic­u­larly un­der Blair) among middle-class pro­fes­sion­als who tend to­ward lib­er­al po­s­i­tions on so­cial, en­vir­on­ment­al, and for­eign policy is­sues; mean­while, again like U.S. Demo­crats, Labor has lost sup­port among work­ing-class whites drawn to con­ser­vat­ive ar­gu­ments against taxes, wel­fare, and im­mig­ra­tion. The Con­ser­vat­ives still rely to a great­er de­gree on voters with more edu­ca­tion than on those with less, but polls by the in­de­pend­ent re­search firm YouGov sug­gest that Labor now draws its sup­port about evenly from across the edu­ca­tion­al spec­trum — a dis­tri­bu­tion that would have been un­ima­gin­able only a few dec­ades ago. “There is still a pos­it­ive cor­rel­a­tion between class and [party pref­er­ences],” says Peter Kell­ner, pres­id­ent of YouGov, “but it is much weak­er than it used to be.” In­stead, the most im­port­ant fis­sure in Brit­ish polit­ics now is re­gion­al, with Labor con­trolling north­ern Eng­land, Scot­land, and Wales, and the Tor­ies strongest in south­ern Eng­land (ex­cept for Labor-fa­vor­ing parts of Lon­don).

The erosion of tri­bal al­le­gi­ances to the ma­jor parties provided more room for the Lib­er­al Demo­crats to emerge as a full-scale third party after the 1980s, al­beit one with a clear ceil­ing. In elec­tions since the Thatch­er era, the Lib­er­al Demo­crats have usu­ally cap­tured between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total vote, of­ten get­ting sup­port from bet­ter-edu­cated urb­an voters drawn to the party’s gen­er­al mix of en­vir­on­ment­al­ism, in­ter­na­tion­al­ism, and fisc­al re­straint. (The party’s lead­er, Nick Clegg, who serves as deputy prime min­is­ter to Camer­on, rep­res­ents an af­flu­ent uni­versity com­munity.) However, the Brit­ish “first-past-the-post” sys­tem re­wards each le­gis­lat­ive seat to the can­did­ate who wins the most votes, without re­quir­ing a run­off if no one ob­tains a ma­jor­ity. As a res­ult, the Lib­er­al Demo­crats’ share of seats in Par­lia­ment nev­er ap­proached its over­all share of the vote. (The party of­ten comes in second in both Labor strong­holds and Con­ser­vat­ive ones.) But by bet­ter tar­get­ing their ef­forts, the Lib­er­al Demo­crats have sig­ni­fic­antly ex­pan­ded their in­flu­ence: They won al­most ex­actly the same 23 per­cent of the vote in the 1987 and 2010 elec­tions, but cap­tured just 22 seats in the former and 57 in the lat­ter.

As Kell­ner notes, the im­plic­a­tions of the Lib­er­al Demo­crats and smal­ler parties win­ning a great­er num­ber of seats in the Com­mons were for many years dis­guised, be­cause the Con­ser­vat­ives be­hind Thatch­er in the 1980s, and Labor be­hind Blair from 1997 through the first part of this cen­tury, dom­in­ated polit­ics any­way. But with neither party en­joy­ing such pre­pon­der­ant sup­port in 2010, the Con­ser­vat­ives won only a plur­al­ity of 306 seats, fall­ing well short of the 326 needed for a ma­jor­ity. That forced Camer­on to forge his co­ali­tion deal with Clegg.

Prime ministers as different as Thatcher and Blair enjoyed almost untrammeled freedom. (CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images) CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images

For the Brit­ish polit­ic­al es­tab­lish­ment, one of the most crit­ic­al ques­tions is wheth­er the cur­rent co­ali­tion is an an­om­aly or a mod­el that may be­come in­creas­ingly com­mon in the dec­ades ahead. Be­fore 2010, no elec­tion had failed to pro­duce a ma­jor­ity — thereby cre­at­ing what the Brit­ish call a “hung Par­lia­ment” — since the 1970s. (And even then the Labor Party tried to gov­ern through an un­stable “minor­ity gov­ern­ment” rather than ne­go­ti­ate a form­al co­ali­tion.) The dom­in­ant view among the polit­ic­al lead­er­ship in the ma­jor parties prob­ably tilts to­ward the ex­pect­a­tion that co­ali­tions will re­main rare. “The party people will say this is an ab­er­ra­tion,” Rid­dell says. Prime min­is­ters as dif­fer­ent as Thatch­er and Blair en­joyed al­most un­trammeled free­dom. (CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Im­ages)

But he is one of many ob­serv­ers who be­lieve that ex­pect­a­tion may be off the mark. Kell­ner, whose firm con­ducts ex­haust­ive sur­veys on Brit­ish opin­ion, like­wise con­siders it more likely than not that the next elec­tion, sched­uled for May 2015, will pro­duce an­oth­er hung Par­lia­ment. His firm’s re­cent polls have found Labor at­tract­ing just un­der 40 per­cent of the vote and the Con­ser­vat­ives draw­ing about one-third. That’s more than their com­bined share in 2010, but still not enough to guar­an­tee a ma­jor­ity for either side. In ad­di­tion, Kell­ner says, the his­tor­ic pat­tern in which the gov­ern­ing party usu­ally gains sup­port in the fi­nal year be­fore the elec­tion could move the two ma­jor con­tenders to­ward something even closer to a tie in the over­all vote. Labor must also carry the weight of low rat­ings for its lead­er, Ed Miliband. (Miliband was in­tro­duced to the pub­lic in a Shakespearean swirl of drama: After Labor’s 2010 de­feat, he was se­lec­ted as party lead­er when he un­ex­pec­tedly chal­lenged, and beat, his more cent­rist older broth­er, Dav­id Miliband, the out­go­ing for­eign min­is­ter who had been the front-run­ner for the job.) Adding it up, Kell­ner con­cludes: “Un­less something ex­traordin­ary hap­pens, it is very likely we have an­oth­er hung Par­lia­ment. It may be that we are en­ter­ing a peri­od of some dec­ades where the new nor­mal­ity is a hung Par­lia­ment, which has not been the case for the past 80 years.”

Tim Far­ron, a lead­ing Lib­er­al Demo­crat MP, echoes Kell­ner’s pre­dic­tion. “When you’ve got a mul­ti­party demo­cracy, you need one of the two main parties to have a really com­pel­ling nar­rat­ive in or­der to get a ma­jor­ity — either hope or fear — and now there isn’t such a thing,” says Far­ron. “And so that leaves a situ­ation where if there isn’t a com­pel­ling reas­on for one to switch to the oth­er “¦ I think there is prob­ably a 60 per­cent chance of an­oth­er hung Par­lia­ment.”

Polit­ic­al ana­lysts and op­er­at­ives agree that a second con­sec­ut­ive hung Par­lia­ment would be a wa­ter­shed in Brit­ish polit­ics. In most European na­tions, notes Rid­dell, the lead­ing parties as­sume they will need to com­prom­ise and part­ner with at least one of the rivals they run against. That as­sump­tion hasn’t yet seeped in­to the Brit­ish sys­tem, which is still defined by open con­flict (sym­bol­ized by the rauc­ous weekly joust­ing of Prime Min­is­ter’s Ques­tion Time). Yet if the 2015 res­ult pro­duces an­oth­er co­ali­tion, Rid­dell pre­dicts, the two ma­jor parties in­creas­ingly will be com­pelled to build “an an­ti­cip­a­tion of com­prom­ise” in­to their agen­das. “If you ex­pect co­ali­tion every time, your cul­ture is dif­fer­ent,” he says.

Already, the op­er­a­tion of this co­ali­tion has pre­viewed the changed dy­nam­ics by in­tro­du­cing more com­plex­ity and ne­go­ti­ation to a sys­tem that pre­vi­ously moved a single party’s agenda in­to law with al­most mech­an­ized ef­fi­ciency. On the biggest eco­nom­ic ques­tions, all ob­serv­ers agree, the Con­ser­vat­ives and Lib­er­al Demo­crats have locked arms to a sur­pris­ing ex­tent. Brush­ing past un­waver­ing op­pos­i­tion from Labor, they have uni­fied be­hind the core agenda of fisc­al aus­ter­ity shaped by George Os­borne, the Con­ser­vat­ive chan­cel­lor of the Ex­chequer, the gov­ern­ment’s chief eco­nom­ic of­fi­cial. Brady, the Con­ser­vat­ive MP, is crit­ic­al of the co­ali­tion on oth­er fronts, but on the cent­ral tax and spend­ing is­sues, he says the al­li­ance with Lib­er­al Demo­crats has been “very sol­id.” In­deed, he says, pub­lic sup­port for the agenda has prob­ably in­creased be­cause it’s not just Con­ser­vat­ives tout­ing it. “I think that [fisc­al aus­ter­ity] has been el­ev­ated by the co­ali­tion,” he says. “It has giv­en a re­mark­able solid­ity to that po­s­i­tion.” The res­ult is that, on spend­ing re­straint, the co­ali­tion has pro­duced “a Thatcher­ite gov­ern­ment” with a re­cord in­dis­tin­guish­able from the one a Con­ser­vat­ive-only ma­jor­ity might have amassed, says Bale, the polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist who stud­ies the party.

But, in oth­er ways, the Lib­er­al Demo­crats have forced the Con­ser­vat­ives in dir­ec­tions they prob­ably would not have gone alone. Lib­er­al Demo­crats pres­sured the co­ali­tion’s seni­or part­ners to ex­empt more low-in­come fam­il­ies from in­come taxes and to scale back a tax cut for the highest earners. Clegg, in his speech to the Lib­er­al Demo­crat Party con­ven­tion last Septem­ber, lis­ted al­most a dozen oth­er spe­cif­ic Con­ser­vat­ive pri­or­it­ies, in­clud­ing in­her­it­ance-tax cuts, edu­ca­tion re­form, and re­stric­tions on work­place rights, that he said his party had led its part­ner to shelve. On the en­vir­on­ment, he in­sisted, the Lib­er­al Demo­crats had fought the Con­ser­vat­ive ma­jor­ity “tooth and nail” to “keep this gov­ern­ment green.” Camer­on offered a back­han­ded ac­know­ledge­ment of his al­lies’ re­strain­ing in­flu­ence when he re­cently told a con­ser­vat­ive magazine he keeps a “little black book” of policies he would im­ple­ment if the next elec­tion provided him a Con­ser­vat­ive-only ma­jor­ity. “I feel very pas­sion­ately that I want single-party gov­ern­ment,” he told The Spec­tat­or in Decem­ber. These co­ali­tion cracks widened this month when Os­borne signaled the gov­ern­ment’s in­ten­tion to pur­sue fur­ther large re­duc­tions in wel­fare spend­ing after the next elec­tion, and Clegg im­me­di­ately de­nounced the pro­pos­al as “a mo­nu­ment­al mis­take.”

Camer­on and Clegg may be at least partly cho­reo­graph­ing these com­plaints, as Labor Party strategists sus­pect, to mo­tiv­ate each party’s par­tis­ans be­fore the ap­proach­ing elec­tion. But there’s no ques­tion the co­ali­tion has jostled the con­ven­tion­al dy­nam­ics of Brit­ish polit­ics in ways large and small.

One of those ways has been to com­plic­ate the op­pos­i­tion for Labor, which has worked tire­lessly to por­tray Camer­on as fa­vor­ing the wealthy. But one top Labor strategist ac­know­ledges that some of the con­ces­sions the Lib­er­al Demo­crats forced on the Tor­ies (such as ex­empt­ing more lower-in­come fam­il­ies from in­come taxes) have blurred that por­trait. “There is a con­fu­sion in our at­tacks that comes from the fact that they have to keep a wide spec­trum happy,” the strategist said.

For the Lib­er­al Demo­crats them­selves, the co­ali­tion has been an em­phat­ic­ally mixed bless­ing. It has provided their greatest sus­tained in­flu­ence on policy, but their pub­lic sup­port in the polls has tumbled to about half its 2010 level, as left-of-cen­ter sup­port­ers dis­il­lu­sioned by the party’s co­oper­a­tion with Camer­on have aban­doned them for Labor. “In terms of our abil­ity to make a dif­fer­ence, it’s great,” Far­ron says. “In terms of the elect­or­al im­pact on the party, it’s been very harsh in­deed.” Al­most all ob­serv­ers ex­pect the Lib­er­al Demo­crats to lose seats in the next elec­tion, al­though the strong loc­al ties many MPs have built should mean their num­bers in Par­lia­ment won’t fall as far as their de­cline in the over­all vote share would sug­gest.

The ne­ces­sit­ies of the co­ali­tion have also fur­ther com­plic­ated an already fraught re­la­tion­ship between Camer­on and the Con­ser­vat­ives’ far-right flank, which is grow­ing in in­flu­ence, as the tea party has in the United States. While the Tor­ies’ right wing is com­fort­able with Camer­on’s eco­nom­ic agenda, it has al­ways res­isted oth­er ele­ments of his ef­forts to “mod­ern­ize” the party — par­tic­u­larly his sup­port for gay mar­riage and for en­vir­on­ment­al meas­ures such as ac­tion against cli­mate change. And the Right has al­ways viewed Camer­on as too cau­tious in res­ist­ing im­mig­ra­tion and op­pos­ing Bri­tain’s par­ti­cip­a­tion in the European Uni­on, which raises the same con­cerns about “sov­er­eignty” among con­ser­vat­ives here that United Na­tions treat­ies do in the United States.

On these so­cial, en­vir­on­ment­al, and in­ter­na­tion­al is­sues, many hard-right Tor­ies grumble that the need to mol­li­fy Lib­er­al Demo­crats has pulled the gov­ern­ment away from their own party’s core con­vic­tions. In par­tic­u­lar, the Feb­ru­ary 2013 vote leg­al­iz­ing gay mar­riage — which passed only with broad sup­port from Labor and Lib­er­al Demo­crats after a ma­jor­ity of Tor­ies re­belled — has rankled grass­roots act­iv­ists. “While quite a lot of the agenda of the gov­ern­ment has been con­ser­vat­ive, there is, non­ethe­less, a con­tinu­ing — prob­ably grow­ing — sense among the tra­di­tion­al Con­ser­vat­ive voters that the Con­ser­vat­ive gov­ern­ment doesn’t share their in­terests,” says Brady, who chairs the “1922 Com­mit­tee,” an in­flu­en­tial or­gan­iz­a­tion of Tory con­ser­vat­ives.

Camer­on has re­spon­ded to that anxi­ety over the past year by shift­ing to the right on re­la­tions with Europe (he’s prom­ised, if reelec­ted, to hold a ref­er­en­dum on wheth­er the U.K. should leave the Uni­on) and im­mig­ra­tion (pro­pos­ing to re­strain be­ne­fits for mi­grants, and per­haps lim­it their entry over­all, which would sharply de­part from E.U. rules). He has also en­trus­ted the Con­ser­vat­ive reelec­tion cam­paign to Lyn­ton Crosby, a hard-edged, base-ori­ented Aus­trali­an strategist, who is ex­pec­ted to sharpen the party at­tacks on wel­fare, im­mig­ra­tion, and Europe — all of which will in­ev­it­ably in­crease ten­sions with the Lib­er­al Demo­crats.

But even so, Camer­on’s cent­rist im­pulses on some fronts, re­in­forced by the de­mands of co­ali­tion, have widened the open­ing for the two-dec­ade-old UK In­de­pend­ence Party to po­ten­tially emerge as a fourth vi­able na­tion­al party, al­though it con­trols no seats in the Com­mons today.

UKIP, as it is known, blends cul­tur­al con­ser­vat­ism, sus­pi­cion of im­mig­rants and in­ter­na­tion­al in­sti­tu­tions, and at­tacks on both wel­fare re­cip­i­ents and wealthy “elit­ists” — al­most pre­cisely the mix of policies cham­pioned in the United States by Pat Buchanan dur­ing the 1990s (and by oth­er nat­iv­ist European parties, such as France’s Na­tion­al Front, today). Nigel Far­age, UKIP’s smooth, me­dia-savvy lead­er, has shown a knack for con­nect­ing with lower-middle-class voters who feel left be­hind by the eco­nomy and both ma­jor parties. (YouGov’s polls show that UKIP runs much bet­ter with blue-col­lar than white-col­lar work­ers.) Al­though the party cri­ti­cizes both sides, it takes spe­cial glee in de­noun­cing Camer­on’s con­ser­vat­ives as ideo­lo­gic­al quis­lings: “Diet Coke com­pared to the full fla­vor of us,” says Tim Aker, who heads UKIP’s policy unit. With sur­veys show­ing the party’s na­tion­al sup­port spik­ing to double di­gits (after it at­trac­ted only about 3 per­cent of the vote in 2010), Aker says ebul­li­ently, “2015 is a break­through elec­tion for us”¦. You’ve got four-party polit­ics now.”

That’s a bit pre­ma­ture. Be­cause of the first-past-the-post elect­or­al sys­tem, even if UKIP main­tains its ex­pan­ded sup­port through the elec­tion — an un­cer­tain pro­pos­i­tion — it wouldn’t gain many, if any, seats in Par­lia­ment; even Aker pre­dicts only one to five. But Tor­ies jus­ti­fi­ably fear that by si­phon­ing off enough right-lean­ing voters, UKIP could tip many oth­er seats from Con­ser­vat­ive to Labor.

Among Con­ser­vat­ive MPs, the fear of be­ing out­flanked on the right is re­in­for­cing an­oth­er strik­ing trend in Brit­ish polit­ics: the break­down of lock­step party unity in le­gis­lat­ive votes. Philip Cow­ley and Mark Stu­art, Uni­versity of Not­ting­ham pro­fess­ors who study vot­ing trends, re­por­ted re­cently that with at least some mem­bers of the gov­ern­ing co­ali­tion dis­sent­ing on nearly 40 per­cent of its votes, Par­lia­ment since 2010 “re­mains on course to be the most re­bel­li­ous since 1945.” The par­tic­u­lar com­plic­a­tions of co­ali­tion may be in­flat­ing those num­bers, but the trend to­ward fray­ing loy­alty is lar­ger. The post-World War II re­cord for re­bel­lions that this Par­lia­ment is likely to shat­ter is held by the Labor gov­ern­ment that the co­ali­tion ous­ted. “Party dis­cip­line is a shad­ow of its former self,” says An­thony King, the long­time stu­dent of Brit­ish polit­ics and a coau­thor of the new book The Blun­ders of Our Gov­ern­ments.

The root of this change, many Brit­ish ob­serv­ers be­lieve, may be the same ebbing of tri­bal loy­alty that is erod­ing the two parties’ share of the over­all vote. As at­tach­ments to the parties weak­en, MPs feel more pres­sure to ap­peal to voters as in­di­vidu­als, which en­cour­ages them to dis­play more in­di­vidu­al­ity in their vot­ing re­cords. Once sus­pect, in­de­pend­ence is now of­ten an elect­or­al as­set. When Brady, for in­stance, resigned a few years ago from a party lead­er­ship post in protest of a Con­ser­vat­ive edu­ca­tion-policy shift that was un­pop­u­lar with his con­stitu­ency, it “was fully six months be­fore I left my home without a stranger com­ing up to me and shak­ing my hand,” he says. “By be­ing more in­de­pend­ent, more the loc­al cham­pi­on, I think more of us can build a level of sup­port in our loc­al con­stitu­en­cies sep­ar­ate from party.”

The ex­ist­ence of the co­ali­tion has ac­tu­ally fa­cil­it­ated these re­bel­lions, by mak­ing it easi­er for the Con­ser­vat­ive right flank (the most fre­quent dis­sent­ers) to op­pose Camer­on without ac­tu­ally de­feat­ing him, be­cause the Lib­er­al Demo­crats can usu­ally com­pensate for their lost votes. But the tur­moil has pro­duced some losses for Camer­on — on polit­ic­al re­form, European Uni­on fund­ing, and the Syr­ia au­thor­iz­a­tion — and few here would be sur­prised if le­gis­lat­ive de­feats for the gov­ern­ing party be­come more com­mon.

The erosion of party dis­cip­line re­in­forces the oth­er big changes in Brit­ish polit­ics: the de­clin­ing share of the ma­jor-party vote, the emer­gence of a third (and po­ten­tially, with UKIP, even a fourth) vi­able na­tion­al party, and the grow­ing like­li­hood of fu­ture gov­ern­ing co­ali­tions. All are stead­ily trans­form­ing a polit­ic­al sys­tem built on bin­ary trench war­fare in­to a jumbled com­pet­i­tion with more com­batants and mul­tiple bat­tle­fronts: less Guns of Au­gust and more Game of Thrones.

This new en­vir­on­ment means that Brit­ish policy in­creas­ingly will re­quire ne­go­ti­ation, ac­com­mod­a­tion, and what Rid­dell, the In­sti­tute for Gov­ern­ment dir­ect­or, calls “per­petu­al com­prom­ise” among a wider range of fac­tions and in­terests than in pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions. That shift will provide a vivid coun­ter­point — and likely some im­port­ant les­sons — as the Amer­ic­an polit­ic­al sys­tem, spurred by un­re­lent­ing po­lar­iz­a­tion, bur­rows more deeply in­to the trenches.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.