Tim Bale

Cinderella and her ugly sisters: the mainstream and extreme right in Europe's bipolarising party systems

The rise and mainstreaming of Europes Green parties has not only enlarged the left bloc in many party systems but helped to drive a trend toward bipolar competition. This article argues that the rise and mainstreaming of far right parties has done the same for the other side and reinforced the trend. This change in the political opportunity structure was not simply seized upon but in part engineered by a centre-right willing to rely on former pariahs for legislative majorities. By adopting some of the far rights themes, it legitimised them and increased both their salience and the seats it brought into an expanded right bloc. Once in office, the centre-right has demonstrated its commitment to getting tough on immigration, crime and welfare abuse, not least to distract from a somewhat surprising turn toward market liberalism. The analysis concludes by asking what this means for both bipolar blocs in the longer term.

If you can't Beat them, Join them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe

Over the last three decades many Western European social democratic parties have been challenged by populist radical right parties. The growth and success of parties on the right flank of the party system represents a triple challenge to the social democrats: they increase the salience of issues traditionally ‘owned’ by the right; they appeal to working-class voters who traditionally support the centre left; and they may facilitate the formation of centre-right governments. This article explores social democratic parties’ strategic options in the face of this challenge, and tests the widespread assumption that the centre-left parties respond by taking a tougher stance on issues related to immigration and integration. Comparative analysis of developments in Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway reveals significant variation in the substance, scope and pace of the strategic responses of their social democratic parties. And it suggests that those responses are influenced not only by the far right but also by the reactions of mainstream centre-right parties and by parties on their left (and liberal) flank. Internal disunity, potential or actual, is also an important factor.

Turning round the telescope. Centre-right parties and immigration and integration policy in Europe

Because those who study migration do not focus much on parties, while those who study parties tend to focus on migration only insofar as it affects electoral competition and positioning, the role of political parties in immigration control and integration policy is underestimated. Parties on the centre-right, which have enjoyed nowhere near the attention devoted to their more radical counterparts, are particularly important and interesting in this respect. They make up many European governments and therefore help to determine state and EU policy. Maintaining their ownership of the issues involved makes electoral sense but their policies on control and integration are not purely, or at least primarily, a strategic response to the populist radical right; even before the rise of the latter, immigration and integration were matters of genuine ideological and practical concern for Europes market liberal, conservative and Christian Democratic parties. Too hard a line, however, risks alienating their supporters in business and in civil society. It is a difficult balance, but one that makes a big difference both to the parties involved and the public policies they help to produce.

Political parties and interest groups Disentangling complex relationships

According to a widespread assumption, party–interest group links are significantly weaker than they used to be. Both sets of organizations, it is said, now prefer autonomy over the constraints implied by close relationships, especially in supposedly ‘cartelized’ established party systems but also in new democracies. In this article, we briefly review existing literature on party–group links and argue that the common wisdom – and this particular aspect of Katz and Mair’s cartel thesis – may need to be qualified. First, we have to define more precisely what we mean when we talk about the relationships in question, not least because they may assume myriad forms. Second, the little empirical research that has been done hints at a good deal of variety, both over time and between polities and parties. Third, we must further explore possible explanations for such differences in party–group relations, including the motives of the actors involved. The substantive articles in this special issue throw new light on all three issues.

The Conservatives since 1945 : the drivers of party change

1. Introduction 2. Disaster to Deliverance: 1945-1951 3. Anxiety, Appeasement, Affluence - and After: 1951-64 4. Amateur to Professional: 1964-1970 5. Betrayal: 1970-4 6. Confrontation and Consensus: 1974-1979 7. Messiah to Meltdown: 1979-1997 8. Conclusion Index

Why Do Tories Defect to UKIP? Conservative Party Members and the Temptations of the Populist Radical Right

This research note draws on a new survey to reveal a widespread willingness among current Conservative Party members in Britain to countenance voting for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) at future general elections. Those most likely to do so are cultural conservatives, but they are not overly right-wing on the distributional dimension of politics. They are particularly concerned about immigration and the European Union, do not feel valued or respected by their own leadership and even regard David Cameron — their own party leader and the countrys prime mnister — as ideologically more remote from them than UKIP. This serves to illustrate some of the strategic dilemmas facing centre-right parties confronted by populist right challengers.

The radical left in coalition government: Towards a comparative measurement of success and failure

This article raises questions about how best to assess the performance of radical left parties participating in coalition governments. Drawing in part on interviews (see Appendix 1), it covers parties that have participated in coalition government (Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Norway), or have acted as ‘support parties’ (Denmark, Sweden), or are debating the ‘pros and cons’ of coalition participation (Netherlands). It undertakes a comparative analysis of how radical left parties themselves evaluate the measure of their achievements and failings in coalition government — a critical exercise for such parties that can influence their tactical and strategic decisions about future government participation, as well as the ability of the parties to survive political and electoral setbacks. The approach we adopt is one that takes the policy, office and votes triad developed by political scientists seriously, but also factors in the principles, political outlook and goals of the parties themselves. It concludes that the experience of coalition government for radical left parties is far from encouraging to date. Their few achievements have to be set against many potential pitfalls. Whilst there may be no alternative to government participation if these parties wish to be taken seriously as actors, a more strategic and cautious approach to coalition formation seems advisable in many instances.

New Administration, New Immigration Regime: Do Parties Matter After All? A UK Case Study

Research on the impact of parties on public policy, and on immigration policy in particular, often finds limited evidence of partisan influence. In this paper, we examine immigration policy-making in the UK coalition government. Our case provides evidence that parties in government can have more of an impact on policy than previous studies acknowledge, but this only becomes apparent when we open up the ‘black box’ between election outcomes and policy outputs. By examining how, when and why election pledges are turned into government policies, we show that partisan influence depends not only on dynamics between the coalition partners, but how these dynamics interact with interdepartmental conflicts and lobbying by organised interests. In-depth process tracing allows us to see these complex dynamics, which easily get lost in large-n comparisons of pledges and outputs, let alone outcomes.

Politics matters: a conclusion

In 2006 Eurobarometer asked respondents throughout the EU-25 whether they agreed or disagreed that immigrants contributed much to their country. There were big differences according to occupation and education: only around four out of ten people in managerial positions disagreed compared to nearly six out of ten manual workers; the difference between those who left school before 16 and those educated past their 20th birthday was almost exactly the same. There were also, as Table 1 shows, big differences between countries – not only between the EU-15 and new member states, but within the EU-15, some of whose centre-right parties we examine in this volume.

New Labour in power: precedents and prospects

Acknowledgements Preface Contributors 1. Introduction Brian Brivati and Tim Hale 2. Economic policy: lessons from past Labour Governments Jim Tomlinson, Commentaries: Edmund Dell, Peter Jay 3. From welfare state to post-welfare society? Labours social policy in historical and contemporary perspective Nicholas Ellison, Commentaries: A.H. Halsey, Christopher Price 4. The moral agenda David Walker, Commentaries: Joe Bailey, Michael Phelan 5. Managing the state Gerard Alexander, Commentaries: Edward Plowden, Martin Smith 6. The Constitution, Part I: Blairs agenda Edward Pearce, Commentary: Austin Mitchell 7. Foreign, defence and European affairs John Young, Commentary: Geoffrey Warner 8. Managing the party and the trade unions Tim Bale, Commentaries: Patrick Seyd, Peter Shore 9. Earthquake or watershed? New Labour in Power Brian Brivati Index Appendix: ICBH and CUSP.