UK Political Parties

The functions and features of parties#

FoundationAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

The functions of political parties

Fig. 1Parties aggregate interests into programmes, recruit and organise government, and link citizens to the state.

A political party is an organised group of people with broadly shared political views that seeks to win political power, usually by contesting elections and forming (or seeking to form) a government. Parties are distinct from pressure groups: parties seek to win power and take responsibility for governing across the whole range of policy, whereas pressure groups seek to influence those in power on particular issues without themselves governing. This distinction - parties aim to govern, pressure groups aim to influence - is a frequent exam discriminator and the starting point for understanding what parties are for.

Parties perform several essential functions in a democracy, and a strong answer names and explains them. They aggregate and articulate interests, gathering the diverse demands of society into coherent programmes and offering voters organised choices. They make policy, developing the detailed programmes on which they seek and exercise power. They select candidates and leaders, providing the personnel of politics and government, and so perform the function of political recruitment. They organise the business of government and opposition, structuring Parliament and giving coherence to the executive. Without parties, elections would be contests between disconnected individuals rather than organised choices between governing programmes.

Parties also perform functions of participation, representation and mobilisation. They offer citizens a route to participate in politics - through membership, campaigning and internal decision-making - and they represent broad coalitions of interests and identities. They mobilise consent and educate the electorate, campaigning to inform voters of choices and to build support for programmes, and in government they provide a mechanism of accountability, since voters can hold the governing party responsible at the next election. Parties thus link citizens to the state, translating public opinion into government action and back again.

The features of UK parties reflect these functions and the electoral system. The UK has traditionally had strong, disciplined parties with clear (if broad) ideological identities, because the parliamentary system requires cohesive parties able to sustain a government, and FPTP rewards two large 'catch-all' parties that each assemble a broad coalition of support. Modern parties are increasingly 'catch-all' - seeking support across social divisions rather than representing a single class - and have seen their mass memberships decline, raising questions about their representativeness and funding. Understanding parties' functions and features is the basis for analysing the specific ideas of the Conservative and Labour parties, the party system, and the funding controversy that follow.

Worked example

Distinguishing parties from pressure groups

Explain the key differences between a political party and a pressure group.

Aim
Parties seek to WIN power and govern; pressure groups seek to INFLUENCE those in power without governing.
Scope
Parties develop programmes across the whole range of policy; pressure groups usually focus on particular issues or interests.
Accountability
Parties in government take responsibility and are accountable at elections; pressure groups bear no responsibility for governing.
Overlap
The line can blur - some minor parties act like single-issue pressure groups, and some pressure groups contest elections to raise their profile.

Result: Parties and pressure groups both organise political activity, but a party seeks to win power and govern across all policy and is accountable at elections, whereas a pressure group seeks to influence government on particular issues without taking responsibility for governing.

Typical mistakes

Blurring parties and pressure groups - parties seek power and take responsibility for governing; pressure groups seek to influence without governing.
Listing functions without explaining how parties link citizens to government and structure democratic choice.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three functions of political parties. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The Conservative Party: ideas and development#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

One-nation conservatism versus the New Right

Fig. 2Both are Conservative traditions concerned with order and nation; they differ sharply on the state, the market and inequality.

The Conservative Party is one of the oldest and most successful political parties in the world, and its ideas draw on the conservative tradition while adapting pragmatically to circumstance. Traditional conservatism, rooted in thinkers such as Edmund Burke, emphasised pragmatism over ideology, respect for tradition and established institutions, a belief in human imperfection and the need for order, an organic view of society as an interconnected whole, and a defence of property. From this tradition the party inherited a preference for gradual, cautious change, scepticism of grand schemes, and a strong attachment to the nation, the constitution and social order - a disposition as much as a doctrine.

A key internal tradition is 'one-nation' conservatism, associated with Benjamin Disraeli and revived at various points in the twentieth century. One-nation conservatism holds that the privileged have a paternalistic duty to look after the less fortunate, that gross inequality threatens social cohesion, and that the state should act pragmatically to bind society together and prevent it dividing into 'two nations' of rich and poor. In practice this disposed one-nation Conservatives to accept a mixed economy, a welfare state and a degree of state intervention to maintain social stability - a moderate, paternalistic conservatism concerned above all with unity and order.

From the late 1970s the party was transformed by the New Right, associated with Thatcherism, which fused two strands. The neo-liberal strand drew on classical-liberal economics - free markets, privatisation, deregulation, lower taxes, a 'rolled-back' state and individual responsibility - arguing that state intervention had sapped enterprise and freedom. The neo-conservative strand emphasised a strong state on law, order, defence and traditional social values, and a robust assertion of the nation. The New Right thus combined economic liberalism with social and national conservatism, and it moved the party away from one-nation acceptance of the mixed economy towards a more free-market, individualist and assertive stance, reshaping British politics.

The tension between one-nation and New Right conservatism runs through the modern party and is central to analysing it. The two strands differ on the role of the state (paternalist intervention vs free-market minimalism), on inequality (a threat to be moderated vs an acceptable spur to enterprise), and on the balance between social duty and individual responsibility. The party has swung between and blended these strands as circumstances and leaders have changed, sometimes emphasising compassionate, one-nation themes and sometimes free-market or nationalist ones. Evaluating the Conservative Party means tracing this internal debate and assessing how far the party has remained ideologically consistent or shifted with electoral and economic circumstance - and a strong answer treats the party as a coalition of these traditions rather than a single fixed ideology.

Worked example

Tracing the shift from one-nation to the New Right

Explain how and why the Conservative Party shifted from one-nation conservatism towards the New Right.

The one-nation position
Post-war Conservatives accepted a mixed economy, welfare state and intervention to maintain social cohesion - a paternalist, moderate conservatism.
The economic challenge
Economic difficulties in the 1970s discredited, for many, the interventionist consensus and opened the way to a free-market critique.
The New Right response
Thatcherism fused neo-liberal economics (markets, privatisation, lower taxes, a smaller state) with neo-conservative social and national values (strong state on order, traditional values).
The effect
The party moved from accepting the mixed economy towards individualism and the free market, reshaping British politics and the party's identity.

Result: The Conservative Party shifted from one-nation paternalism towards the New Right as economic difficulties discredited the interventionist consensus, and Thatcherism fused free-market economics with strong-state social conservatism - a change of both economic and ideological direction that still divides the party.

Typical mistakes

Treating 'conservatism' as a single fixed doctrine rather than a coalition of one-nation and New Right traditions.
Confusing the two New Right strands - neo-liberalism (free-market economics) and neo-conservatism (strong state on order and values).

Active revision

Explain and analyse three differences between one-nation conservatism and the New Right. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The Labour Party: ideas and development#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

Old Labour versus New Labour

Fig. 3Both pursue social justice; Old Labour relies on public ownership and equality of outcome, New Labour on the market and equality of opportunity.

The Labour Party grew out of the trade-union and socialist movements at the start of the twentieth century to represent the interests of the working class and organised labour, and its ideas draw on the socialist tradition. 'Old Labour' - the party's traditional social-democratic and democratic-socialist outlook for much of the twentieth century - emphasised equality and the reduction of class inequality, collectivism and solidarity, the common ownership of key industries (expressed in the original Clause IV of the party's constitution, committing it to common ownership of the means of production), a strong welfare state and public services, and the representation of the working class and the unions. Old Labour looked to the state, public ownership and redistribution to build a more equal society.

'New Labour', the modernised party from the mid-1990s, represented a decisive revision of these ideas, associated with the 'third way'. New Labour accepted much of the free-market, competitive economy the New Right had entrenched - abandoning the commitment to widespread public ownership (symbolised by rewriting Clause IV) and embracing the market as the engine of prosperity - while seeking to combine this with social justice through investment in public services, targeted measures against poverty, and equality of opportunity rather than of outcome. The 'third way' presented itself as transcending the old left-right divide, combining economic efficiency (the market) with social justice (an active but not owning state), and it moved Labour towards the political centre to win power.

The shift from Old to New Labour was driven by both electoral and ideological considerations, and analysing why is a common demand. Electorally, repeated defeats persuaded modernisers that the party had to broaden its appeal beyond its traditional working-class base to 'middle England' and to reassure voters on the economy, tax and public ownership. Ideologically, modernisers argued that the old collectivist, public-ownership model was outdated in a changed economy and society, and that social-democratic ends (fairness, opportunity) could be pursued through market means. Critics on the left argued that New Labour had abandoned socialism and accepted the New Right settlement, betraying the party's founding purpose - a charge that fuels the party's continuing internal debate.

The tension between the party's traditions has continued to shape it, swinging between more socialist and more centrist positions. The internal debate is essentially between those who want to reclaim a more radical, redistributive, collectivist socialism (closer to Old Labour, or further left) and those who favour a centrist, market-accepting social democracy (in the New Labour mould), with the balance shifting under different leaders and circumstances. Evaluating the Labour Party means tracing this ongoing argument about the party's soul - how far it should accept the market and seek the centre, and how far it should pursue a more transformative equality - and assessing how far its ideas have changed in response to electoral pressure and a changed economy. As with the Conservatives, the party is best understood as a coalition of traditions in continuing tension.

Worked example

Why Labour modernised into New Labour

Explain why the Labour Party moved from Old Labour to New Labour.

Electoral pressure
Repeated defeats convinced modernisers the party had to broaden beyond its traditional base and reassure voters on the economy, tax and public ownership.
A changed economy
Modernisers argued the old collectivist, public-ownership model was outdated in a changed economy and society.
The 'third way'
New Labour accepted the market as the engine of prosperity while pursuing social justice through investment and opportunity - rewriting Clause IV to symbolise the change.
The cost
Critics on the left argued this abandoned socialism and accepted the New Right settlement - a charge that still divides the party.

Result: Labour modernised into New Labour under electoral pressure and in response to a changed economy, adopting the 'third way' - accepting the market while pursuing social justice through opportunity and investment - a shift symbolised by rewriting Clause IV but resented by the party's left as a retreat from socialism.

Typical mistakes

Treating Labour as a single fixed ideology rather than a coalition of socialist and social-democratic traditions in tension.
Missing the significance of Clause IV (its original commitment to common ownership and its rewriting by New Labour).

Active revision

Explain and analyse three differences between Old Labour and New Labour. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The Liberal Democrats and minor parties#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

Classifying the minor parties

Fig. 4Minor parties differ in type and in how FPTP treats them - concentrated nationalist support fares far better than evenly-spread support.

The Liberal Democrats are the UK's principal third party, and their ideas draw on the liberal tradition. Formed from the merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, they combine classical-liberal commitments (individual liberty, constitutional reform, a limited but enabling state, civil liberties, internationalism) with a modern, social-liberal concern for social justice, opportunity and the environment. Distinctive Liberal Democrat positions include strong support for constitutional and electoral reform (they favour proportional representation, which would benefit them), civil liberties, decentralisation, and a pro-European, internationalist outlook. As a centrist party they have positioned themselves between, and drawn support from, both the Conservative and Labour parties.

The Liberal Democrats' fortunes illustrate the difficulties facing third parties under FPTP. Because First Past the Post rewards parties with concentrated support and penalises those whose vote is spread evenly across the country, the Liberal Democrats have often won a share of seats far smaller than their share of the vote - the clearest victims of FPTP's disproportionality, which is one reason they champion electoral reform. Their participation in coalition government demonstrated both the potential influence of a third party (holding the balance of power, extracting policy concessions) and the risks (sharing responsibility for an unpopular government and losing support). The party's experience is a case study in the constraints the electoral and party systems place on third parties.

Beyond the Liberal Democrats, a range of minor and nationalist parties shape UK politics, and a good answer can classify and assess them. Nationalist parties - the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru in Wales - have concentrated regional support that, under FPTP, can translate into significant blocs of seats, and the SNP in particular has become a major force, dominating Scottish politics and pressing for independence. Single-issue and insurgent parties - the Greens (environmentalism) and, at various times, UKIP and Reform (Euroscepticism and immigration) - have influenced the agenda and the major parties even when winning few seats, by shifting public debate and drawing votes that force the larger parties to respond.

The role of minor parties is important for evaluating the party system, the topic's culminating debate. Minor parties can influence policy out of proportion to their representation - by raising issues the major parties then adopt, by drawing away votes, by holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament, or (for nationalists) by winning enough concentrated seats to be significant. But FPTP limits their parliamentary representation and their ability to win power, so their influence is often indirect. A strong answer uses the varied fortunes of these parties - the FPTP-squeezed Liberal Democrats, the concentrated-support SNP, the agenda-shifting Greens and insurgents - to assess whether the UK remains a two-party system or has become genuinely multi-party, which the final section develops.

Worked example

Why the SNP thrives under FPTP but the Liberal Democrats suffer

Explain why FPTP treats the SNP and the Liberal Democrats so differently.

The SNP's concentrated support
The SNP's support is concentrated in Scotland, where it can win pluralities in many constituencies and so translate votes efficiently into seats.
The Liberal Democrats' spread support
The Liberal Democrats' support is spread thinly across the country, so they come second in many seats but win few - their votes are 'wasted' under FPTP.
The mechanism
FPTP rewards geographically concentrated support and penalises evenly-spread support, regardless of the total national vote share.
The implication
A nationalist party can win a large bloc of seats on a modest national vote, while a third party with a similar or larger national vote wins very few.

Result: FPTP rewards concentrated support and penalises evenly-spread support, so the SNP's Scotland-concentrated vote converts efficiently into seats while the Liberal Democrats' nationally-spread vote is largely wasted - the same system produces opposite fortunes depending on how support is distributed.

Typical mistakes

Treating all minor parties alike - nationalist parties (concentrated support) fare very differently under FPTP from evenly-spread parties (Liberal Democrats, Greens).
Assuming minor parties are irrelevant because they win few seats, ignoring their influence on the agenda and the major parties.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three reasons why minor parties struggle to win seats under First Past the Post. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

Party funding and the funding debate#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

Party funding: sources, problems and reforms

Fig. 5Declining membership has made parties dependent on large donations, raising fears of donor influence; reforms tackle part of the problem.

Political parties need money to organise, campaign and communicate, and how they raise it is a persistent controversy in UK politics. The main sources of party funding are: membership subscriptions (once the mainstay of mass parties, but declining as memberships have fallen); donations from individuals, businesses and, for Labour, trade unions; and limited public funding, chiefly 'Short money' (and 'Cranborne money' in the Lords), which supports opposition parties' parliamentary work but not their general campaigning. Because membership income has fallen, parties have become more dependent on large donations, which is the root of the funding problem.

The reliance on large donations raises serious concerns about the integrity of the political system. The central worry is that large donors - wealthy individuals, companies or unions - may gain, or appear to gain, undue influence over party policy and access to decision-makers, so that money buys political influence and the wealthy have a louder voice than ordinary citizens. Periodic scandals over donations and the honours system ('cash for honours' allegations) have reinforced public suspicion that donations are exchanged for favours or peerages. The uneven capacity of parties to raise funds also creates an unequal playing field, advantaging parties able to attract big donors. Regulation - through the Electoral Commission, spending limits, and rules requiring the declaration of large donations - has increased transparency but not resolved the underlying dependence on private money.

Several reforms have been proposed to address the funding problem, and a good answer can set them out and weigh them. A cap on donations would limit the influence any single donor could buy, but might leave parties short of funds. State funding of parties - the taxpayer financing parties in proportion to their support - would end dependence on private donors and level the playing field, but is objected to as forcing citizens to fund parties they oppose, entrenching existing parties, and being unpopular with a public reluctant to give politicians public money. Tighter caps on campaign spending would reduce the need for large sums. Reforming the trade-union link (how union members contribute to Labour) has been a recurring, partisan issue. Each reform tackles part of the problem but carries objections, which is why the issue has persisted unresolved.

Evaluating the funding debate means weighing the case for reform against the objections and reaching a judgement. The case for reform - especially donation caps combined with some state funding - is that it would reduce the influence of wealthy donors, restore public confidence, and equalise competition, protecting the integrity of democracy. The case against - especially against state funding - is that it forces citizens to fund parties they reject, entrenches the established parties, and is politically unpopular, and that the current system of transparency and spending limits is a reasonable safeguard. A defensible judgement is that the dependence on large private donations is a genuine threat to the integrity of politics that justifies reform, and that a combination of a donation cap with limited, support-linked state funding and tighter spending limits would address the worst problems - while recognising the real objections to compelling taxpayers to fund parties. The skill is to reach a clear conclusion about whether and how party funding should be reformed.

Worked example

Model essay plan: should party funding be reformed?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether party funding should be reformed.

Introduction and thesis
Note the dependence on large donations; signal a judgement - reform is justified, ideally a donation cap plus limited state funding and spending limits.
The case for reform
Large donors may buy influence and access; scandals (cash for honours) erode confidence; unequal fundraising creates an uneven playing field - reform would protect integrity and equalise competition.
The case against
State funding forces citizens to fund parties they oppose, entrenches established parties and is unpopular; the current transparency and spending limits are a reasonable safeguard.
Weigh the reforms
Donation caps limit donor influence but leave a funding gap; state funding fills it but is contentious; spending limits reduce the sums needed - a combination addresses more of the problem.
Judgement
Conclude that dependence on large private donations is a genuine threat justifying reform, and that a donation cap combined with limited, support-linked state funding and tighter spending limits is the best answer - while acknowledging the objection to compelling taxpayers to fund parties.

Result: A top-band plan weighs the threat of donor influence against the objections to state funding, and judges that party funding should be reformed - through a donation cap, limited support-linked state funding and tighter spending limits - to protect the integrity of politics, while acknowledging the real objection to compelling taxpayers to fund parties.

Typical mistakes

Thinking UK parties are already largely state-funded - only limited public funding (Short money) exists, mainly for opposition parliamentary work.
Listing reforms without weighing their objections (especially the objection to compelling taxpayers to fund parties).

Active revision

'Party funding in the UK should be reformed.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The UK party system: two-party or multi-party?#

AdvancedAQA 7152/1 Section B: Political partiesDfE GCE Politics subject content

The UK party system by level of analysis

Fig. 6The UK is two-party in Westminster seats but multi-party in votes and in the devolved nations - FPTP preserves the difference.

The culminating question is what kind of party system the UK has, and a strong answer shows that the answer depends on the level and measure one uses. A party system is the pattern of interaction and competition between parties in a political system. The classic characterisation of the UK is a two-party system: two major parties (Conservative and Labour) dominate, alternate in power, and between them win the great majority of seats and form single-party governments, while other parties are marginal. This picture is supported by the fact that one of the two major parties has formed almost every UK government, and by the way FPTP sustains their dominance.

The case that the UK remains essentially a two-party system rests on government and seats. At Westminster, the two major parties continue to win the overwhelming majority of seats and to monopolise government, because FPTP squeezes out evenly-spread third parties and rewards the two large 'catch-all' parties. Governments are almost always formed by one of the two, and the choice facing voters at a general election is, in practice, usually between a Conservative and a Labour government. On this view, despite the noise of minor parties, the fundamentals of two-party dominance in seats and government persist.

The case that the UK has become multi-party, or at least is no longer a simple two-party system, is also strong and rests on votes and territory. The combined vote share of the two major parties has at times fallen well below its mid-twentieth-century peak, as voters have supported Liberal Democrats, nationalists, Greens and insurgent parties; the SNP has become dominant in Scotland, making Westminster politics there effectively a different contest; the devolved bodies, elected by proportional systems, have genuine multi-party politics and coalition or minority governments; and a hung Parliament and coalition at Westminster showed that single-party majorities cannot be taken for granted. On this view the UK is better described as a multi-party system at the level of votes, a multi-party system in the devolved nations, and only a two-party system in Westminster seats and government - a more complex, differentiated picture.

The judgement a sophisticated answer reaches is that the label depends on the level of analysis, and the best answer is nuanced rather than a flat 'two-party' or 'multi-party'. Measured by Westminster seats and government, the UK remains largely a two-party system, sustained by FPTP; measured by votes, it is increasingly multi-party, as support has fragmented; measured by nation, it is a patchwork - a two-party contest in much of England, a dominant-party or multi-party system in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The strongest conclusion is that the UK is best described as a two-party system at Westminster that overlays an increasingly multi-party electorate and genuinely multi-party devolved politics - so that FPTP alone preserves two-party dominance in seats over a fragmenting, multi-party reality in votes. This differentiated, evidence-based judgement, tied explicitly to the measure and level used, is what distinguishes a top-band answer.

Worked example

Model essay plan: is the UK still a two-party system?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether the UK is still a two-party system.

Introduction and thesis
Note that the answer depends on the measure; signal a judgement - two-party at Westminster in seats, multi-party in votes and in the devolved nations.
The two-party case
The two major parties win most Westminster seats and monopolise government; FPTP squeezes out evenly-spread rivals; the real choice is usually Conservative or Labour.
The multi-party case
The two parties' combined vote share has fallen; the SNP dominates Scotland; the devolved bodies have genuine multi-party, coalition politics; a hung Parliament and coalition occurred at Westminster.
Distinguish the levels
Seats/government (two-party), votes (multi-party), nation (a patchwork) - FPTP preserves two-party dominance in seats over a fragmenting vote.
Judgement
Conclude that the UK is a two-party system at Westminster overlaying an increasingly multi-party electorate and genuinely multi-party devolved politics - so the label depends on the level, and FPTP alone sustains the two-party appearance.

Result: A top-band plan distinguishes seats/government (two-party) from votes (multi-party) and from the devolved nations (a patchwork), explains FPTP's role in preserving two-party seats over a fragmenting vote, and judges the UK a differentiated system - two-party at Westminster, multi-party beneath - a nuanced, evidence-based conclusion.

Typical mistakes

Giving a flat 'two-party' or 'multi-party' answer without distinguishing seats/government from votes and from the devolved nations.
Ignoring FPTP's role in sustaining two-party dominance in seats despite a fragmenting national vote.

Active revision

'The UK is no longer a two-party system.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Key points

Distinguishing parties from pressure groups

Key points

Tracing the shift from one-nation to the New Right

Key points

Why Labour modernised into New Labour

Key points

Why the SNP thrives under FPTP but the Liberal Democrats suffer

Key points

Model essay plan: should party funding be reformed?

Key points

Model essay plan: is the UK still a two-party system?

Sources

UK Political Parties

Key points

Distinguishing parties from pressure groups

Key points

Tracing the shift from one-nation to the New Right

Key points

Why Labour modernised into New Labour

Key points

Why the SNP thrives under FPTP but the Liberal Democrats suffer

Key points

Model essay plan: should party funding be reformed?

Key points

Model essay plan: is the UK still a two-party system?

Sources