Suchergebnisse

Abstract. Unlike most European countries, party leadership roles in Britain are largely concentrated into the hands of one person. The pattern was established in the nineteenth century, when the posts of Prime Minister and party leader were intertwined, and has been maintained by the modern parties. Each of the main British parties has changed its method of selecting its leader in the last thirty years and between them the parties use, or have used relatively recently, the four basic methods of selection—by the party elite, by parliamentarians, by activists and by party members. The broad trend has been for the parties to make their procedures more open and participatory. While this pattern has reflected the 'spirit of the age' the major reasons for the change have been political considerations. The Conservatives changed from selection by party elites to selection by MPs in an attempt to modernise their image. Labour adopted an electoral college as a result of power struggles between left and right in the party. The Liberals eventually accepted that it was not sensible for their leader to be selected by just a dozen or less MPs (and the Social Democrats and Liberal Democrats duly followed this logic). Despite the adoption of more open procedures the selectorates are still relatively small (with only the Liberal Democrats involving all members), while control over the process of nomination remains firmly in the hands of the MPs. One consequence of this is that British party leaders have been characterised, above all, by the extent of their parliamentary experience. Within that characteristic, however, the detailed rules of the different selection procedures have been crucial in determining which particular parliamentarians would emerge.

Untersuchung der Wahlverfahren britischer Parteien bei der Nominierung von Kandidaten und der innerparteilichen Wahl eines Parteivorsitzenden sowie Analyse der Funktionen und der Bedeutung der Parteivorsitzenden innerhalb der jeweiligen Partei, des Regierungssystems bzw. des politischen Systems Großbritanniens

TO WHAT EXTENT IS A GOVERNMENT'S LEGITIMACY AFFECTED BY THE REGIONAL BREADTH OF ITS SUPPORT? IN THE 1983 BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT WAS RETURNED TO OFFICE WITH A LARGE OVERALL MAJORITY IN THE COMMONS, BUT THERE WERE CONSIDERABLE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE EXTENT OF ITS SUCCESS. THE CONSERVATIVES WON 70% OF THE ENGLISH SEATS BUT ONLY 37% OF THE SEATS IN WALES, 29% IN SCOTLAND AND NONE IN NORTHERN IRELAND. WITHIN ENGLAND THE CONSERVATIVES WON 86% OF THE SEATS IN THE SOUTH AND 70% IN THE MIDLANDS, BUT JUST 41% IN THE NORTH. THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH MARKED REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE LEVEL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SUCCESS RAISES THE SPECIFICALLY TERRITORIAL ASPECT OF THE GENERAL QUESTION OF HOW FAR IT IS DESIRABLE FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, AND A GOVERNMENT PARTY IN PARTICULAR, TO HAVE BREADTH OF SUPPORT AS WELL AS DEPTH. THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE MEANS THAT "A MAJORITY OF ONE IS ENOUGH", BUT GOVERNMENT NORMALLY SEEK MORE THAN JUST A BARE MAJORITY. TO DISRAELI'S OBSERVATION THAT "A MAJORITY IS THE BEST REPARTEE" CAN BE ADDED THE RIDER THAT "A MAJORITY THAT IS LARGE AND BROADLY-BASED IS THE BEST REPARTEE OF ALL". CERTAINLY, DURING 1983 ELECTION CAMPAIGN THE PRIMKE MINISTER INDICATED THAT SHE ECT SOUGHT AS COMPREHENSIVT A VICTORY AS POSSIBLE AND WAS QUICK TO CORRECT THE (THEN) FOREIGN SECRETARY WHEN HE SUGGESTED THAT A LANDSLIDE WIN WAS NOT NECESSARILY DESIRABLE BECAUSE OF THE STIMULUS IT COULD GIVE TO TO BACKBENCH DISSENT.