1

The Rise of Single-Issue Parties in UK politics: A New Direction in Representative Democracy?

Ella Guthrie 13777171 1POL699 : Politics and International Relations Dissertation Module Leader: Frands Pederson Dissertation Supervisor: Patricia Hogwood

Word count: 9857 words.

2

Contents:

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….3

Chapter one: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….……..4

Literature …………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….6

Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..……..7

Chapter two: Representative democracy and Party Politics in the UK ……………………..9

Party theory in relation to Westminster ………………………………………………………..11

Chapter three: Flaws of participatory democracy and the evolution of the

cosmopolitan democracy………………………………………………………………………………………..…..15

UK cosmopolitan society…………………………………………………………………………………..18

Chapter four: Single Issue Parties as new ventures in representation ………………..…..23

Case Study A: Green Party………………………………………………………………………..……..24

Case Study B: United Kingdom Independence Party………………………….…………..26

Case Study C: National Health Action Party…………………………………………….……..27

Chapter five: Conclusion. Can Single Issue parties change the face of the British

Electoral System?........................... ....................................................................28

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..31

Dissertation Assessment Criteria ………………………………………………………………………………..36

3

Acknowledgments

I would first and foremost like to thank Patricia Hogwood, and furthermore dedicate

this piece of work to her. Not only has she been a superb dissertation supervisor over

the past year, someone who was probably almost as excited as I am to embark on a

topic with such a large gap in the literature, but also a friend who was understanding

and patient through one of the most difficult years of my life.

I would also like to thank the other amazing students who I have shared countless

hours in the library with, there has been many a moment we al l thought we weren’t

going to make it, yet here we are, I can scarcely believe it.

I would like to thank my amazing mother, without whom I wouldn’t have studied a

degree in Politics in the first place,

And last but by no means least, I would like to thank the lads at Workshop coffee for

supplying me with as much as I needed to get me through the sleepless nights. I will

pay you back somehow.

4

INTRODUCTION

Right now is a very interesting time for British politics. The run up to the 2015 election has

seen some of the most heated discussion and debate on policies concerning environment,

education and immigration, and the speculation on what might occur post-May 7th

has

bewildered academics and members of the public alike. Why? Because we can’t help but

notice a shift in the political alignment of the general public. Where general elections in the

UK have followed a pretty basic pattern since 1945 of Labour or Tory Government, the

choice on a voting ballot is no longer so simple. The emergence of new, exciting and

sometimes controversial political parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party

(UKIP), Green Party and the National Health Action Party (NHAP) have opened up a new

topic of debate: Does a two party electoral majority system no longer reflect the voting

behaviour of British Society?

During the 2010 general elections, voter turnouts for each party were so low that an

embarrassing last minute scandal resulted in a botched coalition between the Conservative

Party and the Liberal Democrats. According to information published by the House of

Commons Library, (2012) Only 65.1% of the eligible population voted and although this is

an improvement from the last two elections, the period 2001-2010 has had the worst voter

turnouts since 1945 and the introduction of universal suffrage. (Power Inquiry, 2006) In

2010, the Conservative party won only 36.1% of the vote, leaving them searching for

legitimacy in the form of a coalition. This angered a lot of the population, as the decisions

that were made at the top were barely influenced by the public.

When you look at the bare figures including the whole electorate of the UK, it seems that

only 23% of those registered to vote chose the Conservative party. This implies that

representative democracy under the majoritarian approach of the UK’s first-past-the-post

electoral system is not coherent with the needs of the general public registering the levels of

frustration and anti-politics that may be occurring. According to an internal report published

via the House of Commons library, over 80,000 people purposefully spoilt their ballot rather

than vote for a political party. (McGuinness, 2012)

5

With all this in mind, I became very interested in how Single Issue parties could act as an

electoral innovation in representative democracy. There has been a lot of discussion over the

past ten years or so, that our current electoral system, built for an industrial era, does not

reflect the fluidity of modern society. I thus set about to prove that single issue parties are the

answer to keeping a representative system, yet allowing all new and developing sectors of

society to be represented.

6

Literature

Over the course of this year I have read countless texts and theories that have related to the

UK electoral system and any theoretical or normative perspective that might help me prove

my hypothesis (see next chapter.) However, the largest piece of literature that inspired me,

and by default the idea for this entire dissertation was the Independent Inquiry into Britain’s

Democracy (2006) by the Power Inquiry. The Power Enquiry looks to see why apathy is at

such a high, and why people are so disillusioned and disengaged with our political system. It

shows that in fact, there has been a gradual decline in formal political involvement, whereas

over the past 30-40 years, society has grown and developed into a globalised structure which

has reclaimed politics in its own way, mostly through community participation. However, our

political system is still engrossed in its historical creation – a majorly largely two party

system where most of its MPs are rich, wealthy old white men that have nothing in common

with ordinary people.

Whilst reading this it occurred to me that perhaps the birth and growth of single issue parties,

parties that are smaller and more focussed, funded mainly by the belief and the determination

of citizens can change this upper class, two party system, could develop a more grassroots

system, therefore getting more citizens interested and involved in politics and could increase

apathy, therefore increasingly the problem of legitimacy in our current representational

society.

7

Methodology

Research Questions:

How does the UK system interpret democratic consent between the government and the

governed?

How has representative democracy changed and with what implications for the relationship

between government and the governed?

How and why has apathy arisen in UK voting behaviour?

What are the alternatives for citizens who want to see their wishes represented?

Can single-issue political parties improve the legitimacy of governance in the UK?

Can single-issue parties help to restore the confidence of voters in the system?

Can single-issue parties help to counter voter apathy in the UK?

How and to what extent does the media report new single- issue parties in the UK?

Can the new context of the ‘digital age’ help to support new single-issue parties?

How effective can single-issue parties be in countering voter apathy in the UK if the electoral

system stays the same?

Can single-issue parties make a lasting impact on UK party politics, or are they destined to be

transitory?

If single-issue parties cannot translate their appeal to a wider electoral audience, can they still

have a beneficial effect on representative democracy in the UK?

Research Hypothesis to defend

I hope to discover that the rise of single issue parties will aid to fill a gap in society between

the public and political organisation, by making political parties more accessible and

addressing issues that are felt strongly by the public. If they are successful, I believe they

could give more citizens a voice and a chance for involvement in the political sphere. This

would therefore lead onto legitimacy by the increase in involvement and opinion by the

public. The more voices, the more legitimate politics and policies will be.

8

I am however, aware that I am writing about an issue and in some ways, an innovation that

has barely been tested in this country, and my work will stop short of the 2015 general

election in May. This means that there simply might not be enough evidence to conclude

whether my hypothesis has hope, so I am using a variety of theoretical sources that explain

ideology and phenomenon in ancient and recent history in order to examine how our society

has changed and how the representative party system could evolve with it. For example I use

functional party theory to describe our current system of government, and a revitalised

concept of cosmopolitanism to describe the changes in society.

Another setback I must also remember when researching and conducting my work, is that

many other writers, scholars, and academics have written and researched about apathy and

anti-politics, looking not only for answers but also solutions, and more often than not, have

returned empty handed. But the most common route is to look at participatory politics rather

than the idea of revitalising our traditional idea of representative democracy through new

parties that aren’t part of the crony network, have concerns that are relevant to the people but

are being ignored or downplayed by the established parties, and are operating in an era of

enhanced media interest and digital communication.

The only way I can hope to counter act this disappointing truth of the field, is hope that the

current events and attitudes we can see in modern British Society are pushing towards a new

era and a new method of representation. Perhaps the lack of information surrounding my

chosen topic means that this could be a new innovation that pushes through the old

restrictions, leaving us with a more democratic and widely represented population.

9

CHAPTER TWO Liberal Tradition of Representative Democracy

In order to discuss how single issue parties could become an innovation of sorts in our

representative liberal democracy, we first need to define the tradition of democracy itself.

Democracy itself is an ancient concept, spanning all the way back to ancient Greece, where it

was defined as ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’, which roughly translated means ‘power to the people.’

(Crick, 2002, 14 and Pettit, 2009, 61) This is well known, but there is still mass speculation

about what it means to be democratic and how it can form in states. ‘True Democracy’ is

envisaged as a governmental and legislative process where all members of society are

involved and are unanimous in agreement, which would then be morally binding for all

involved. (Pilkington, 1997, 4-5; Christiano, 2015) In reality, democracy as we know it has

come a long way from proclaiming on the streets of Athens. For example, the population of

Athens and Sparta covered a small geographical area, not to mention that those who took part

in the political sphere were Upper Class males. Even the forefathers of the democratic ideal

couldn’t run a system that included everybody. (Pilkington, 1997, 1-2)

However, the ‘true’ democracy in which the Greeks thrived is not what I will be discussing in

this dissertation. Our meaning of democracy has now evolved to a point where the true form

of direct democracy is no longer plausible. (Pilkington, 1997, 4-5) Some advocates for a

return back to Greek-style democracy usually push for a form of ‘participatory democracy’

but I will explain the flaws of this in later chapters. Instead, I will discuss the type of

government used today in most democratic societies around the world: A form of

Representative Liberal Democracy.

Liberal democracy has many different understandings. It could refer to the democracy of a

capitalist market society, where ‘liberal’ can mean the freedom of the ‘stronger to do down

the weaker by following market rules’ (Macpherson, 1977, 1) During its conception in post-

revolutionary France ‘liberal’ came to mean a platform primarily concerned with individual

liberty, and so liberal democracy became concerned with creating democratic institutions that

would ensure this liberty. (Kurian, 2011, 960-1) However, as we can see, politics has

substantially changed since Ancient Greece and the period of Enlightenment. A growth in

population, an industrial revolution and the emergence of universal human rights are all

10

factors in the creation of a modern representative liberal democracy, which in its most

fundamental form we can take to mean a system of ‘representative government’ involving the

‘rule of law, competitive free elections, limited government powers, protection for private

property and for basic individual rights.’ (Kurian, 2011, 960-1) Representative democracy

works in the way that a community of people elect representatives to create legislation and

partake in executive political decisions, in order to be both more efficient and effective. It is

this system of government we pride ourselves on in Britain today. However, in a democratic

theory of representation, there must be the capacity of individuals to object to decisions made

on their behalf if there is mass disagreement, however denying them the right to opt in and

out of political life as they see fit. (Runciman, 2009, 26)

The give and take of individuals and the state relates back to one of the philosophical

forerunners of representative democracy, Thomas Hobbes and his conception laid out in

Leviathan. ‘Hobbes states that the individuals who authorise a sovereign to act on their behalf

must be the owners of everything and anything the sovereign does in their name’ (Runciman,

2009, 18) He is often credited with the modernisation of representation by establishing it as a

tool of the state. However, the vision held by Hobbes is largely an authoritarian one and has

little to do with democratic norms. For example, although Hobbes believed in the power of

the public to oust their leader if they do not agree with their decisions, he also established the

leader, or ‘Leviathan’ as having the ultimate power, and Runciman points out that resistance

on an individual level against the sovereign would be ‘futile.’ (Runciman, 2009, 15-19)

However Runciman also suggest that the Hobbesian view of representation is not so far off

modernity. The system of democracy we can see today has changed so much from what was

considered democratic for thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau, instead we have arguably

reimagined Hobbes model of representation to fit within our thriving, modern society.

Hobbes did not believe that democracy could be practised in a representative model, as he

argued that democracy would require direct involvement and representation, therefore ruling

themselves. (Pettit, 2009, 78) Whereas today, we see the consolidation of power to local

representatives by way of free, fair elections as the ultimate form of democracy in modern

societies. (Kurian, 2011, 960-1)

What we see today in democracies all around the world, specifically the Westminster Model

is a form, one way or another of this type of representation, one of the largest factors in a

11

liberal democracy. We have moved on significantly from the perception that representation is

an effective form of governance aside from democracy, and instead we now see it as an

institutional framework for realising the democratic ideal of giving the public a degree of

political power. (Pettit, 2009, 61) This form of representation revolves around elections, and

in the UK we revolve around a party system in order to elect our representatives. Though

political parties themselves don’t have a set definition, they are at the very essence of a

representative parliament. Their formation tends to rely on identification with a certain group

of ideologies and political concepts, where they then grow into organisations that aim to form

part of a government. (Madgwick, 1984, 254; Garner and Kelly, 1998, 1) Their main focus is

representing ideologies shared by a certain number of the population, therefore popular

parties will reflect the general will.

Arguably, parties seeking office in general promote legitimacy in representative style of

governance. Not only do they give meaning to elections, by allowing voters to choose an

individual representative for their constituency, who are also, in theory, connected to a party

which would share their beliefs and values, but they also promote a healthy style of

parliamentary governance after and between elections. It is for these reasons and plenty

others, that I’m not arguing against a representative style of government, indeed it is the most

efficient way to organise and run a state, instead what I would like to point out is the

evolution of the Westminster Model from a two party system into a debatable multi-party

system, and how this has coincided with the evolution of community in the UK.

Party theory in relation to Westminster

The Westminster model, at least up until 1970, has traditionally always been a two party

system of government. Similarly to other models of democracy that have formed around the

world such as the federal Washington Model which focuses on eliminating tyranny and the

high levels of mobilisation in Latin America that influence elections, the Westminster party

system evolved as a product of its environment, this being largely class alignment. A two

party system usually emerges when there is ‘consensual party culture’ - for example when the

large interests of the public can be reflected into two competing parties. (Garner and Kelly,

1998, 38) At the turn of the twentieth century, the birth of the labour party and the

enfranchisement of the working class in 1867 and 1884 meant that class alignment

12

restructured the Westminster model as we know it, a new configuration emerged, where the

upper and middle classes tended to vote conservative and the newly enfranchised working

class were now represented by the socialist Labour party. (Ingle, 2008, 14-15) This goes

some way to explaining why our electoral system works the way it does. The two party

system has stemmed from the existence of two parties who are capable of winning elections,

leading to a duopoly of representation. For example, between 1945 and 1970, the percentage

of support that went to either conservative or Labour did not dip below 90%. (Garner and

Kelly, 1998, 37-41) In addition to this, our electoral system runs on a First-Past-The-Post

(FPTP) system, which is a simple majority system that allows a candidate to win based solely

on winning a majority vote. (Pilkington, 1997, 90-1) Though this might sound legitimate,

some argue that it has a complete disregard for minority issues, and emphasises the

possibility of a ‘tyranny of majority’ but this is an issue I will delve into further in in the next

chapter.

The relevance of this is to understand that the Westminster Model has evolved into what we

have today- a highly centralised method of parliamentary representation, focused on

individual-level representation and triumphing efficiency. (Pettit, 2009, 84) However, where

this system sufficiently registered public opinion during the heyday of a strictly Labour or

Conservative party race that successfully produced a strong majority single party government,

this is no longer the case and we are starting to see a shift in the voting patterns of the

electorate. (Garner and Kelly, 1998, 43) Where the majority of society felt politically aligned

to the ideologies of a particular party, since the 1970s two things have occurred to produce a

shift.

First, both parties implemented new centralised policies of the new right and new left,

showing similar policies and tailoring ideals towards a consensual centre atmosphere. Labour

modernised and created a ‘third way’ where almost any mention of socialism had ground to a

halt, and the conservatives adopted some aspects of the centre-left agenda such as extending

the power of central government and keeping aspects of the welfare state. (Garner and Kelly,

1998, 22-5) This relates to ‘party competition theory’ – where parties enhance the autonomy

of their leaders, allowing them maximum capacity for strategic flexibility. Translated onto the

Westminster model, this means that each party can manipulate its policies in order to enhance

its beliefs onto a wider selection of the electorate. (Webb, 2004, 29)

13

In a more extreme version of party centralisation can be seen in Otto Kirchheimers theory of

the ‘Catch All Party.’ He focused on how one party could possibly ‘end ideology’ by

centralising policies to ‘catch’ a wider audience. He argued that one party could effectively

promise policies to please the public in exchange for wider electoral success however this

affected party ideology, organisation and external relations. (Kirchheimer, 1990, 41-2) The

theory of catch all parties could definitely be applied to the interests of the modern day

Labour and Conservative parties, but where it is having the opposite effect. For example,

where each party is attempting to aggregate interests into one party, the general public are

becoming more and more disillusioned and displaced from the Westminster Model.

Second, the elitist background of Westminster representation became significantly out of

touch with society. Parties themselves in the UK began as elite parliamentary groups, less

formally organised and restrictive in its membership. (Driver, 2011, 33) This only changed

with the emergence of the Labour Party towards the end of the 19th Century, and they were

still operating within a system tailored to the upper class. So where our current representative

system tailored to a two party system in a post-war society determined by class, our society

has now changed to a point where the current representative system no longer caters to the

opinion of the general public, the electorate is becoming slowly detached from the traditional

form of partisan politics and are less likely to vote due to their perception of class

alignment. (Driver, 2011, 32) This change becomes clear when we look at the emergence of

smaller and single issue parties in the UK electoral system over the past twenty years.

Where we’ve established parties that are supposed to create loyalties and generate symbols of

participation amongst the electorate, in recent years it’s been established that they are

decreasingly successful at doing so. Party identification has taken a dip from the 1960’s

onwards and it is steadily decreasing now. (Clark, 2012, 24) In fact, our party system is in a

constant state of flux. Support for political parties can no longer be assumed based on class, it

has become more conditional based on economic and social policies, and now the two major

parties can no longer count on automatic support. (Garner and Kelly, 1998, 45) Support has

also become more fragmented, and we are starting to see more and more interest in smaller,

minority parties which enable new political issues to be highlighted, and offer alternative

means through which people can participate in public. For example, the Green party raising

the issue of renewable energy where Labour has failed to do so. (Clark, 2012, 109-13) As a

result, the newly disillusioned general public are starting to look for political validation

14

elsewhere, and arguably minority parties aid this by providing new channels of citizen

engagement. (Clark, 2012, 117)

We can see the result of this movement into a multi-party system in the 2010 general election,

and in the run up to 2015. In the 2010 election, there was an absence of majority for either of

the major parties, the conservatives gained only 36.1% of the votes, equating to a total of 306

seats. (McGuinness et al, 2012, 7) Because the Westminster model is highly centralised

around individual-level representation, the majority party needs to stick together to retain

executive power, and due to the lack of seats obtained by the Conservatives, a coalition was

formed In 2010, a documented rise of 1.9 million votes were recorded for minor parties,

equating to 6.4% of the vote (Clark, 2012, 108) However the FPTP system means that the

increase in votes for smaller parties has not translated into an increase in seats. (McGuinness

et al, 2012, 1) But it isn’t just 2010. It’s increasingly more obvious that public opinion is

welcoming the ideas and policies of smaller parties. For example, in the numerous televised

election debates shown by major broadcasting companies such as the BBC, ITV and Channel

4, there was, for the first time, the inclusion of UKIP, the SNP, Scottish Labour and the

Green party. The interest of the media into single-issue and/or minor parties on such a big

scale goes to show just how important they are becoming in our electoral system.

With this in mind, it seems that single issue/minor parties are acting somewhat as a

democratic innovation to mobilise the public and realigning them to certain issues, as we can

see in the rise of votes for parties such as UKIP and Green. However, the elitist model of

representation we have at the moment doesn’t accommodate the growth of minor parties,

which means a large amount of public votes, thus legitimate public opinion, is wasted. My

next chapter evaluates normative theories of democracy that might be better suited to a multi-

party system with a fundamentally different society, modernised past the point of aristocratic

governance.

15

CHAPTER THREE

Ventures into participatory democracy and cosmopolitanism.

After clarifying in the previous chapter that currently in the UK we have a liberal democratic

system of representative democracy, this chapter aims to evaluate the flaws of our

representative system and discuss possible alternatives, such as participatory politics and

cosmopolitanism. The argument stands that the ‘Westminster Model’ – (Pettit, 2009) is a

highly centralised representative system which prioritises group-level representation and high

levels of efficiency sacrificing in the process high levels of participation, and therefore

creating a combination of apathy and political dealignment amongst the electorate. (Pettit,

2009, 85) One way to break apart the sense of disillusionment that seems to coincide with the

Westminster model of representation is an argument for Participatory Democracy.

Participatory democracy is a relatively new idea. What began as a radical idea from the New

Left student movement in the 1960’s as an answer to job dissatisfaction and intellectual

turmoil has now developed into a practical solution all the way through the pipelines as a way

to combat apathy and disillusionment. (Macpherson, 1977, 94; Bachrach and Botwinick,

1992) It focuses on promoting the role of citizens in the decision-making process in order to

make sure that the governance is tackling issues and creating legislation that is at the height

of the citizens’ interest and allowing citizens to become directly involved in the policy

process. (Kohler-Koch, 2013, 2) In fact, it’s such a popular idea that government’s

themselves have begun ‘enrolling’ in the wave of participatory democracy, arguably as a way

to target the margins of the electorate, and it has leaped to the fore in discussions and

legitimacy and apathy. (Macpherson, 1977, 94)

According to the advocates of participatory democracy, it is a holy grail of sorts, something

we must all strive to achieve in our political system, or at least it should be. But why? For a

start, it’s in the direct interest of citizens. Participatory democracy promotes a system where

policies are created by the people, for the people, and those in a high level of power are

constantly kept in check. Participatory democracy is most often connected with the system of

16

direct democracy, which in an ideal setting would be one where a direct exchange between

participants can lead to a mutual understanding and action taken, and wider boundaries could

allow citizens to directly voice their concerns and wishes into the decision making process,

creating higher form of participation. (Kohler-Koch, 2013, 8-10)

These scenarios, however, are assuming to reach some form of consensus on issues in order

to take action. Notable thinkers, including Rousseau, believed instead in a majoritarian style

of direct democracy, where there would be a similar structure, a similar sharing of ideas and

opinions on policy matters, however decisions made in favour of the majority. This may

sound familiar to what our representative system utilises, however, the difference is the

aspect of participation. By deliberation and discussion on important issues, citizens would be

able to define the most important topics resonating with the whole community, and therefore

sculpting policies to the opinion of the majority. It would allow them to be more specific in

agenda setting and in policy, allowing those involved to create a lasting and legitimate policy.

This could also affect the way in which the general public deal with anger and distrust of

politicians via protest and civil unrest. Today, people get angry when drastic and perhaps life

changing decisions are made for them by governments with no influence from public opinion,

we saw this in the vast opposition to the Iraq war in 2003, and we saw it more recently with

the student protests against the rise in tuition fees in 2012. (Bolton, 2012) The decision to go

against public opinion by powerful governments not only causes massive amounts of civil

unrests in the form of protests and rebellion, but also adds to disillusionment. Journalist

Patrick Barnham in an article via the Guardian on the Stop the War protests spoke with

protesters claiming that the disregard for public opinion when creating these political changes

only heightened their own public distrust and disillusionment. (Barnham, 2013)

Whilst we debate over direct and participatory democracy, we must look back to one of the

biggest advocates for general public participation in normative theory, Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau was a canonical thinker absorbed by the general will and popular sovereignty. He

believed that the ‘only legitimate source of authority was the vote of the people as a whole’

and most importantly that the people’s authority ‘could not be transferred or represented.’

(Garsten, 2009, 93) He believed that regular participation can bring out the best in people

and that regular input in the community can help us understand what's good for the general

public, and can, therefore, veer us towards legislation that aids the general good. He also

17

thought that ‘Institutions that claimed to hold the people's sovereignty for them were an

inheritance from the feudal past and a sign of political corruption.’ (Rousseau 1997, in

Garsten 2009, 93) So we see it’s clear he had an issue with the system of representative

democracy, in his writings he also stated that a law is null and void unless approved by the

public themselves, and many take him for an advocate for how the world ought to embrace

direct democracy. This is the consensus alternative to the representative democracy model in

normative theory.

But can liberal democratic governments, specifically the British representative system,

actually be made more participatory? In reality, participatory democracy just won’t work.

Contrary to popular belief, it wouldn’t eliminate equality and it wouldn’t bring us closer

together at all. Finding consensus would be practically impossible, and majoritarian rule

would crush minority interests. In fact, it would result in a ‘tyranny of the majority’ where

consensus would lead to a conformity of ideas and an all-powerful majority could destabilize

the legislative body and most likely create corruption in the use of power by officials.

(Bobbio, 1988, 53)

Moreover, another vital flaw when it comes to consensus and majoritarian rule in a

participatory direct democracy is size. Population has grown substantially in the UK, and

according to an online article by the BBC, London has reached an all-time high population of

8.6 million people; this is just one city. Not to mention that the diversity in communities not

just according to culture but also according to wealth and beliefs is so vast we can't possibly

imagine that people all want the same things when it comes to politics. We are one of the

most multicultural nations in the world, something which wouldn't translate into a system of

governance which is thought to diminish minority rights. (Vatter, 2000, 172) Not to mention

a majority according to Rousseau would have probably been at least two thirds or even three

quarters of the people, whereas in the 2010 election a majority couldn’t even be found in

order to choose the next party of governance, and in 2005 Labour’s achievement of 35.2% of

the vote was enough to constitute a legitimate government. (McGuinness, 2012, 7)

There is the argument that breakthroughs in technology could help facilitate these issues, but

it then raises the problem of a conflict of interests and this could go two ways. The first

would be a classic tyranny of the majority situation, where online interaction gives citizens a

sense of power associated with anonymity online, escalating to form a psychological

18

phenomenon called ‘mob mentality,’ something plausible in real world situations, for

example in crowds, but that can escalate rapidly and uncontrollably online to a state where

online personas could feel confident enough to express extreme views and opinions and even

rally support which wouldn’t be possible in an open, real world situation. One of the best

examples of the power of the internet, is the success of the German Pirate Party. With 28,438

members as of January 2015, it is the biggest sector of a new political movement called

‘pirate parties’ advocating mostly freedom of information. (Kling et al, 2015, 3) With the

adoption of online delegated democracy system LiquidFeedback, they have been able to gain

a lot of online attention, even translating into success in the German General election of 2009,

winning 8.9% of the vote. (Litvinenko, 2012) However, because of the high amount of

uncapped usage and ‘trolling’ the party almost imploded in 2013. (Kling et al, 2015) This

proves how dangerous technology can be in a polarising political system.

The second would be a situation in which we wouldn’t find a majority at all, but instead mass

political polarisation. This mode of democracy would not be able to replicate traditional

party’s aggregative role, in which they bring together and simplify a common set of demands.

In the same way that technology would be able to bring ideas together, it would also shift

power to the individual level, where the diversity in communities would mean we would all

most likely would want different things. (Mullard, 1990, vi-vii) There is the possibility to

consider that Racist terrorist organisations such as the English Defence League would thrive

in such a situation, as would their opposition, leaving us with a wealth of opinion not

advising anything. According to research by the Greater London Authorities, 38% of people

identify as Asian, 36% identify as white, 16% identify as black, 3% identify as mixed and 7%

other. (GLA intelligence, 2014, 4) In this dream of a perfect political society, a majority

through direct participation would be enough for the public to conform to governance, but in

reality, our modern, multicultural society would prevent a majority from forming anyway.

The UK as a cosmopolitan society

There is another philosophical idea which possibly better explains the evolution of our

societies, Cosmopolitanism. It was first imaged in ancient Athens, where Diogenes, the

‘cynic,’ exclaimed that he was, in fact, a ‘citizen of the world’ when asked where he was

from. (Diogenes Laertius VI 63 in Kleingeld and Brown, 2014 and Appiah, 2014) This idea

19

of being a global citizen reappeared during the era of enlightenment, where the issue of

public reason was discussed by Kant in great detail, but since then has been often thought of

as an elitist ideology.

However, I would like to argue that in reality, the concepts and ideas behind cosmopolitanism

are astoundingly apparent in modern day society, specifically in Britain and are also extended

internationally. My argument is that society has transformed to be more inclusive and

political in a participatory sense in the form of charity fundraising, petitions and social rallies

but as I’ve outlined previously in this chapter, participatory democracy won’t work in

Westminster, and nor should it. (White, 2006, 4) The biggest issue with direct democracy is

that it ignores minority based on the need for consensus, however, cosmopolitanism

fundamentally welcomes it. Alas, a restructuring of the Westminster model is needed. Our

representative democratic system needs to grow and stretch to all corners of society to match

and care for our cosmopolitan system, which, as I will argue in the next chapter, we are

already starting to see in the fundamental background of society.

Before I delve into how cosmopolitanism relates to modern Britain, I’ll discuss at a more

conceptual level. Cosmopolitanism in its broadest sense advocates the inclusion of all human

beings to be citizens in a single community regardless of political affiliation, but just like any

other political concept, it lend itself to alternative interpretation. (Kleingeld and Brown, 2014)

Diogenes was one of the first to proclaim the importance of being a global citizen, but it was

the Stoics who really mapped out the idea of a ‘worldwide community of human beings.’

(Held, 2010, 40) Their belief was that we as humans are inhabitants of two worlds, one of

which (the ‘polis’) is given to us via birth right, however the fact that we are all of the same

species and have the capacity to think and the need to care for one another means that we are

all members of the ‘cosmos’ - we share a common community of humanity. (Kleingeld and

Brown, 2014 and Held, 2010, 40) Summarising the ancient Greek input in cosmopolitanism,

we can see that the idea is to put serving and caring for humankind at the height of our

priorities. Interestingly enough, the Stoics also emphasised that political engagement is the

best way to serve fellow human beings. (Kleingeld and Brown, 2014) Linking this to what

we’ve already discussed to the present day, it shows that in this ancient ideology of

welcoming all political backgrounds, the original ideology was still linked to political

involvement. This can be almost identically transcribed into the ideas of cosmopolitanism in

the present day, but I will go into more depth about this topic in the next chapter.

20

Another historical context for cosmopolitanism helps to analyse in terms of the modern day is

progress through the age of Enlightenment. Moving on from the ‘universal human

community’ idea of the Stoics, 18th Century thinkers believed in an extension of human

rights. One of the most prominent thinker on cosmopolitanism at the time, Kant was one of

the first to outline an idea of universal human rights, which he developed as a ‘cosmopolitan

law’ where both states and citizens have the right as citizens of the earth rather than

pertaining to one nation or state. (Kleingeld and Brown, 2014)

Whilst the ideology might sound quite outdated, in truth the principles behind it could not be

more modern. Since the 1990’s, we have seen a growth of interest in humanitarian

intervention, and an even bigger interest in human rights since the middle of the 20th century

and after two of the largest wars that the world had ever seen, there was a global shift towards

a need for peace and a greater urge to care and protect other states. This can be seen in such

documents as the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ in 1948, and also corroborated in

the efforts of the USA to aid failing states both ideologically and ideologically, or so it was

implied in the Truman Doctrine of 1947. The US felt that by encouraging other states to

follow their lead in a liberal democracy, they can all become citizens of a similar world,

therefore becoming stronger and lessening the threat of conflict. An opinion they still enforce

today, however, less coercively. These points are further developed through the concept of

‘cosmopolitan democracy’ by Daniele Archibugi. He argues that in the normative sense, we

as human beings all want the same thing, which is control of force, respect for human rights

and self-determination. He also argues that the best way for us to achieve this is through

democracy. Democracies do not fight each other, therefore if democracy was to spread, the

problems of war and conflict would be solved. (Archibugi, 2003, 6) An idea, examined by

Fukuyama in his now infamous literature titles ‘The End of History’ where he too argued for

the spread of liberal democracy to create peace. (Fukuyama, 1992) Arguably, liberal

democratic societies create a global community that promotes peace, which is fundamentally

a very modern cosmopolitan idea.

Furthermore, although the traditional concepts of cosmopolitanism are now seen as quite

elitist, in reality, our world is even more cosmopolitan than previously thought and that

cosmopolitanism actually defines a set of norms and frameworks in the modern day global

society. (Held, 2010, 51) We have the added influence of technology to facilitate

21

communication across the globe and make it possible to contact the other side of the world in

a matter of minutes. We can share and spread our ideas without even having to leave the

comfort of our own homes. (Appiah, 2014) Most importantly, perhaps the human condition

has now welcomed cosmopolitanism, it has become the defining factor of a ‘new era of

reflexive modernity’ where our borders are continuing to dissolve. (Beck, 2006, 2)

Nevertheless, Beck argues that a world which has become more cosmopolitan urgently

demands a new standpoint, and new institutions that can grasp the social and political

realities in which we live and act. (Beck, 2006, 2-3) Beck is mainly discussing the

international arena here, but we can translate it into a more local example, the Westminster

Model. The idea that our society is already a cosmopolitan one is welcomed in Beck’s second

theory of ‘banal cosmopolitanism.’ He argues that living in such a multicultural society has

anesthetized us against the differences in culture and that our everyday life is so 'glocal', we

hardly notice it, we’re so used to its consumption in our culture. (Beck, 2006, 41) For

example, being able to order Chinese food or Indian food, celebrating the culture of the

Caribbean at Notting Hill Carnival, choosing an Ethiopian or Columbian roast from

Starbucks, an American company, these are all things that barely cross our minds as global

citizens anymore, yet they are all ingrained in our society. And it doesn’t relate solely to

consumption. Being able to turn on the news and see possible images of pain and suffering,

causing us to act or donate in order to extend help to those parts of the world is also an

extremely cosmopolitan side effect to the changing structure of our world.

When we look at how much cosmopolitan ideals are affecting us, both internationally and

closer to home, it’s clear we need to imagine a new political structure which can integrate our

elitist, exclusive model of governance into one that is closer tied to the community, and one

that can be integrated into the cosmopolitan lease of life without affecting efficiency or

legitimacy. One of the ways to do this would be for the emergence of single issue parties to

fill a void in our current political sphere where there is currently no representation, and,

therefore, decrease political dealignment. As I have already discussed, the general public are

increasingly dealigned with current political parties and the ‘Westminster Model’ - leading to

a large amount of institutionalised apathy. By confronting the gap between the public and the

political sphere, and examining democracy in a cosmopolitan sense, I think that I can propose

the idea for a more inclusive style of representative democracy, using single issues parties

22

(and other smaller parties) to bridge this gap. This is the hypothesis I will elaborate on in my

final chapter.

23

CHAPTER FOUR

Single issue parties: the future of representation?

So far throughout this dissertation I have outlined the current issues we are facing in UK

practical politics. We currently have an expanding amount of multicultural communities, we

are experiencing mass political and class dealignment amongst the electorate which is

affecting majorities for major parties that could signal the end of single-party governments,

we have an electoral system developed for a large majority that does not exist anymore, and

we are also seeing an increase in minor and specifically single issue parties that are growing

in support at both a local and a national scale. As a result, it seems clear that our current

model of representative liberal democracy does not reflect the wants and needs of the general

public.

In chapter two I spoke primarily on the function of political parties and in the UK system and

party theory that helps to explain how our representative system has come to be. The idea that

parties play an integrative function in society and aid them by education and helping them

identify with a particular political party is still partly true today, however there is an argument

that in reality the extent to which parties have been able to educate voters in the UK is

debateable. (Clark, 2012, 21-22) In Chapter three I compare this with the gradual rise of

cosmopolitan values, where over the past ten years or so we have also seen an increase in the

number of small parties in the UK electorate, both seeking election and winning office at

different levels. (Clark, 2012, 108) Minor parties have the capacity to enable new political

ideas to be highlighted while also offering alternative means through which people can

participate in politics. (Clark, 2012, 109) It is these ‘means’ that I am suggesting could bridge

the gap between our cosmopolitan society and elitist representative system.

In this chapter I examine three examples of single issue parties. I would like to clarify, as I

have done in my introduction, that I am defining each of these parties as single issue because

of they are each of a more radical nature, or at least began in that way. I would also like to

clarify that it is possible for Single Issue Parties to branch out and become bigger, more

prominent parties in the political system. For example the Green party has grown

24

significantly in recent years, to the point where in 2010 they won their first seat in Brighton

Pavilion, and Caroline Lucas, the then leader of the party, became the first Green MP. (Clark,

2012, 114) But whilst some would argue that the Green Party’s major downfall is being

classed as a Single Issue party, I would like to disagree. As I have iterated time and time

again throughout this study, Single Issue parties emerge when there is a gap in the

representative system. As I explained in Chapter two, where the two major parties moved

towards the centre, there was growth in support for single issue parties as they spoke on

issues that some aspects of society didn’t feel were fully represented. My argument is that

Single Issue parties, if they were allowed to bloom in a representative system, could bridge

the gap we are currently seeing between the current representatives and society. This chapter

will evaluate three examples of single issue parties and how each of them can play their part

as a new venture in representative democracy within a cosmopolitan society.

Green Party

The various Green parties that have been created around the world are a relatively new

concept that have sprung up to do with specific environmental concerns, but what needs to be

understood is that Green politics is not a new phenomenon. (Driver, 2011, 161) Green activist

groups and organisations have started cropping up since the 1960s, focusing not only on the

old consensus of resource depletion and population growth, but mainly due to two major

issues that were occurring at the time: The use of pesticides and chemicals in farming,

leading to pollution, poisoning and overproduction of the earth and the changing global

climate including the depletion of the ozone layer. (Goodin, 1992, 2-4) What was specifically

interesting about the shift in interest into Green politics was that it was not a specific state

issue, but rather a global one that would have to be attacked from all sides, giving it a lot of

prominence in the international community, mainly due to pressure groups such as

Greenpeace that had formed in 1972. (Goodin, 1992, 5 and Driver, 2011, 162)

The Green party in the UK started out as an environmental organisation named ‘people’ in

1973, and didn’t officially become the Green Party until 1985. (Ingle, 2008, 157) It was

during this time that Green political issues really gained prominence, and their primary aim

always having been the promotion of policies intended to deal with environmental

degradation, they have been adamant in their support for organic farming and against the use

of pesticides, and genetically modified food, influenced most likely by the outrage of issues

25

that brought Green politics to live in the 1960s. (Ingle, 2008, 158) However more recently

they have been able to establish themselves as left-libertarians who can combine

environmental policies with economic growth, social justice and public services For example

the policy of the ‘Green New Deal’ in 2009 promised the creation of one million jobs through

investments in renewable housing. (Clark, 2012, 113)

The Green party in general have helped to bring a new set of issues to the fore in the British

Political sphere, and have steadily gained a lot of support, for example consistently gaining

support at European parliament elections, where in 2009 they won 9% of the vote, and in

1989 achieving 15% of the vote, taking the place of Britain’s third most popular party for a

brief period of time. (Ingle, 2008, 158; Driver, 2011, 168) This goes to show that Green

parties in particular have thrived in more contingent, less classed based political world since

the 1960s, as shown in their success in European elections, which run on a proportional

representational system. Arguably, if they were not so held back by a strict majority system,

Green party politics would be allowed to thrive in a representative democracy. (Driver, 2011,

167)

One example of how Green Party politics can thrive in the right environment is the German

Green Party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen’s success in German politics. This party too, emerged as

a Hippie movement, mostly to do with nuclear disarmament and focused on ‘politicising

environmental issues’ as we have discussed, most radical small parties are. (Blühdorn, 2009,

38) However, the German federal system provides small radical parties the option to gain

experience in formal politics, if their ideologies resonate with the general public, and this is

exactly what happened, with the German Greens gaining electoral executive success in 1998

and forming a coalition with the ‘reds’. (Poguntke, 2001, 3) And the Party still has electoral

success today, coming fifth place in the German general election in 2005 with 8.1% of the

vote. (Blühdorn, 2009, 38) This shows how well Green parties can succeed if they are in the

right political environment. It also reiterates the point that there is an aspect of the population

who feel represented by Green politics, and therefore they legitimise representation in

democracy.

When we look at what is possible for Green politics under a different system of

representation, we can see why the Green party in the UK is interested in reforming the

electoral system. Green politics have been established as a global issue, both by the

emergence of Green parties all over the world, and by the fact that everything on the planet is

26

interconnected and the issue of climate change physically affects us all, it has become a

global problem. (Goodin, 1992, 5) So when we bring this into the perspective of our newly

‘glocal’ cosmopolitan society, we can see that the environmental concerns resonate very

strongly with our evolution of society. As previously discussed, our society has moved on

from an industrial society focused predominantly on economic growth, to a post industrialist

society, conscious of the world we live in. (Driver, 2011, 161) In this way, Green parties

appeal to that aspect of society that has been previously unrepresented in a two party system,

but which now exist in a cosmopolitan society.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

The facility of travel and immigration, of technology and increased conflict in the 20th and

21st century means we cannot deny we live in a globalised world. As before mentioned in

Chapter three, this has led to a shift in society of the adoption of more cosmopolitan structure.

However, along with globalisation comes a certain amount of far right politics and

organisations that fight against immigration. During the 1980s, 90s and early 2000’s

continental Europe was rife with far right parties, fuelled by economic insecurity sometimes

caused by globalisation. These parties thrived due to the structure of the political sphere were

far right parties filled a void and spoke to an aspect of the public concerned for cultural

change. (Driver, 2011, 138-9) At the time, these types of parties were not successful in the

UK due to the security of conservatives as the Right Wing in a FPTP system dominated by

two parties. (Driver, 2011, 139)

However, the immersion of UKIP and other more radical nationalist parties such as the

British National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL) has gone some way to

showing that the British political sphere has, in fact changed. UKIP are undoubtedly a single

issue party dedicatedly opposed to increased levels of immigration and opposition to the EU.

From starting as a blip on the political radar in 1994, UKIP have grown to a point where they

claim to be Britain's fourth largest political party, achieving 3.1% of the vote in 2010 and

gaining the 24 of seats, the largest majority, in the UK’s European Elections in 2014. (Clark,

2012, 110; Hawkins et al, 2014, 12)

UKIP and its similar parties fill a void in the spectrum of those who are opposed or

concerned with the increasingly globalised world. For example, in 2002, the National Front

27

gained massive amounts of support in the 2002 Presidential election, as they appealed to

older middle class voters afraid and hostile towards cultural change and the working class,

insecure of it security in a changing job market. (Driver, 2011, 138-9) Although UKIP have a

similar support base, they too are stifled by a FPTP two party strong electoral system,

however a large majority of their voters are those who have become unsatisfied with the

centralisation of the Conservative party and find themselves looking for a more radical right

wing route.

National Health Action Party (NHAP)

The NHAP are a completely new form of single issue party that has just emerged in recent

years due to the publication of the Health and Social Care Act put forward in 2012 by a

Conservative government. Where analysis into the emergence of single issue parties suggests

that they can enable new political ideas to be emphasised (Clark, 2012, 109) this is certainly

true of the goals of the NHAP.

The Health and Social Care Act of 2012 was put forward in order to establish an independent

NHS board that would effectively create a market-like structure in order to promote patient

choice. (Information via parliament.uk) It was brought into action because of the opinion that

the NHS is failing and needs to be modernised immediately, even though an independent

report by an US foundation found the UK NHS system to be top out of eleven western

countries, including Sweden and the US. (Culzac, 2014) In reality, the privatisation of the

NHS is a much bigger topic, which is why a group of Medical Professionals decided to form

a political party, primarily to raise awareness and educate the public about what their health

care services can do for them.

The current manifesto issued by the NHAP is focused on restoring the NHS to its golden age,

where services are efficient, well looked after and most importantly ‘free at the point of entry.’

(NHAP manifesto- nhap.org, 2015) I spent a lot of time with them over the year 2014 during

an internship, and it was clear that although they would like to get a representative elected,

their main focus was on challenging the power of the major parties by standing up to

unchallenged policies, adhering to Clarks (2012, 109) analysis that small party successes are

using elections as a form of protest to raise issues not accounted for by larger parties. This is

28

one of the most important factors I believe single issue parties could do for representative

democracy. NHAP fill a void never before examined, and a specific number of the population

- in this case medical professionals- previously unaccounted for, however whose votes are

continuously sought after. By raising awareness of this issue, they are standing up for a

certain number of people in society.

Effect of these single issue parties in Westminster Model

Single issue parties are growing and already starting to bridge the gap, in fact we are already

starting to see an increase in alignment. Not only has the percentage of voting for smaller

parties increased in the 2010 election, with 6.4% of the vote (Clark, 2012, 109) But in the run

up to the 2015 election the UK polling report issued by YouGov’s Anthony Wells suggests

that Green are taking 5% of the vote alone, whereas UKIP’s popularity has risen to a point

where it can expect approximately 14% of the vote. (UKpollingreport.co.uk) Corroborating

this with the results of the European Elections means that we can see a definite trend in votes

for single issue parties, largely due to the fact that they represent aspects of the political

sphere that the general public no longer feel connected to from either Labour or

Conservatives.

29

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION Can Single Issue parties change the face of the British Electoral System?

So do single issue parties spell a new venture for representative democracy? The answer is

almost certainly yes. In early 2011 there were 382 parties registered on the electoral

commission. (Clark, 2012, 108-9) The trends that we have seen grow over the last few years

are unlikely to be reversed, the fundamental backdrop of society is more different now than it

has ever been. (Driver, 2011, 171) We are more interconnected, and our society is more

glocal and definitely more cosmopolitan than our industrialised government. Where our

electoral system is stuck in the ways of the past, we are living in a world of the future, where

technological breakthroughs are happening every day, yet we still cannot proportionally

represent public alignment to our new and emerging political parties.

Time and time again throughout this dissertation the argument against the FPTP system has

come up, and the argument for a more proportional style of representation is discussed. In the

second chapter I examined how our current party system had evolved, how it related to other

party theories and how it affected minority issue parties, realising that a system catered to

single party government majority stifles the spark of single issue parties, or at least has tried

to. In the third chapter I analysed how our society has evolved into a cosmopolitan

community, where we see ourselves more as ‘citizens of the world’ than pertaining to one

nation, and how in a society this large and this modern could not facilitate a participatory

form of government, but instead must retain representation, as long as it adheres to the

public’s needs, which brought me to my case studies. As part of my project I examined three

different parties I would define as single issue parties and how they could, and have already,

acted as an electoral innovation that has helped realign the general public and fill in the

political sphere.

However, there is one condition that is needed in order for single issue parties to successfully

represent the opinions of the general public, the electoral system of a majority needs to be

reworked to better fit the needs of society. The current system of First Past the Post worked

when the public vote consistently produced single party majority governments, but that just

isn’t the case anymore. The General Public feel displaced from Westminster and disillusioned

30

with our system of governance, to the point where it causes widespread apathy in formal

politics. I would like to point out however, that I found that in no way, shape, or form have I

found the general public to have the same level of apathy expected of them by election results,

instead we can see how much political validation and involvement has changed, to the point

where it is engrained on us at a community level, through the form of volunteering, petition

signing and local meetings. It’s clear that this aspect of community is not going to change -

and nor should it. Instead of waiting until the Westminster Model becomes completely

obsolete, we need to open up our form of representation to include smaller parties that

represent these different aspects of society, either through the form of a referendum on

Alternative Voting (AV), or Proportional Representation.

Either Proportional representation or AV would need to happen in order for Single Issue

Parties to gain any real executive power, but in my opinion it is only really a matter of time

before it does. The referendum on AV in 2011 failed, but the fact that a referendum even took

place is a step towards a more proportional system of representation in Westminster. It is in

the interest of smaller and single issue parties to push for electoral reform, as we have been

seeing via the Green Party. With the increase of support for single issue parties, the more they

reflect the ideology of the general public, thus it is more likely the electoral system will

reform, finally bringing single issue parties into the fore of representative government,

bridging the gap between society and politics in the UK.

Word count: 9857 words.

31

Bibliography

Appiah, K. (2014). Kwame Anthony Appiah: Cosmopolitanism.

Bachrach, P. and Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Barnham, P. (2013). Iraq war 10 years on: mass protest that defined a generation. The

Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/iraq-

war-mass-protest [Accessed 19 Apr. 2015].

BBC News, (2015). London's population hits 8.6m record high. [online] Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31082941 [Accessed 16 Apr. 2015].

Blühdorn, I. (2009). Reinventing Green Politics: On the Strategic Repositioning of the

German Green Party. German Politics, 18(1), pp.36-54.

Bobbio, N. (2005). Liberalism and democracy. London: Verso.

Bolton, P. (2014). Tuition Fee Statistics. London: The House of Commons Library.

Brand, R. (n.d.). Revolution.

Cheah, P. (2006). Cosmopolitanism. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), pp.486-496.

Christiano, T. (2015). Democracy.

Clark, A. (2012). Political parties in the UK. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Crick, B. (2002). Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croucherconsult.co.uk, (2015). UK Population and Census. [online] Available at:

http://www.croucherconsult.co.uk/genealogy/Census.htm [Accessed 16 Apr. 2015].

Culzac, N. (2014). NHS means British healthcare rated top out of 11 western countries, with

US coming last. The Independent. [online] Available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-

western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

32

Dovi, S. (2014). Political Representation.

Driver, S. (2011). Understanding British party politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

El-Gingihy, Y. (2013). Health act means the death of the NHS as we know it. The Guardian.

[online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/30/health-

act-means-death-of-nhs [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.

Garner, R. and Kelly, R. (1998). British political parties today. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Garsten, B. (2009). Representative Government and Popular Sovereignty. In: I. Shapiro, S.

Stokes, E. Wood and A. Kirshner, ed., Political Representation, 1st ed. New York:

Cambridge University Press, pp.90-111.

Goodin, R. (1992). Green political theory. Cambridge, Uk: Polity Press.

Greater London Authority Intelligence, (2014). Mixed and Balanced Communities. London:

Census Information Scheme.

Hawkins, O., Miller, V. and Hardacre, J. (2014). European Parliament Elections 2014.

London: House of Commons Library.

Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Held, D. (2010). Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ingle, S. (2008). The British party system: An Introduction. 4th ed. London: Routledge.

Kirchheimer, O. (1990). The Catch All Party. In: P. Mair, ed., The West European Party

System, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kleingeld, P. and Brown, E. (2014). Cosmopolitanism.

Kohler-Koch, B. (2013). Civil society and democracy in the EU. De-Mystification of

Participatory Democracy, pp.1-16.

Krouwel, A. (2003). Otto Kirchheimer and the catch-all party. West European Politics, 26(2),

pp.23-40.

33

Kurian, G. (2011). Liberal Democracy. In: The Encyclopaedia of Political Science, 1st ed.

Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp.960-1.

Litvinenko, A. (2012). Social Media and Perspectives of Liquid Democracy: The Example of

Political Communication in the Pirate Party in Germany. In: Proceedings of the

European Conference on e-Government. [online] Available at: http://Proceedings of the

European Conference on e-Government [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].

Macpherson, C. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford [England]: Oxford

University Press.

Madgwick, P. (1984). Introduction to British politics. London: Hutchinson.

Mair, P. ed., (1990). The West European Party System. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mair, P., Müller, W. and Plasser, F. (2004). Political parties and electoral change. London:

SAGE, pp.1-20.

McGuinness, F., Cracknell, R., Davis, M. and Taylor, M. (2012). UK Election Statistics:

1918-2012 Research paper 12/43. London: House of Commons Library.

Moulakis, A. (2011). Civic Humanism.

National Health Action Party, (2015). Manifesto of the National Health Action Party. [online]

London: National Health Action Party. Available at: http://nhap.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/04/National-Health-Action-Party-Election-Manifesto-2015.pdf

[Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

Oldbaileyonline.org, (2015). London History - A Population History of London - Central

Criminal Court. [online] Available at: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-

history-of-london.jsp [Accessed 16 Apr. 2015].

Paul, B. (2014). Tuition fee statistics. London: House of Commons Library.

Pettit, P. (2009). Varieties of Public Representation. In: S. Ian, S. Stokes, E. Wood and A.

Kirshner, ed., Political Representation, 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press,

pp.61-90.

Pilkington, C. (1997). Representative democracy in Britain today. Manchester: Manchester

34

University Press.

Poguntke, T. (2001). Green parties in national governments. Keele: SPIRE, Keele University.

Rousseau, J. and Gourevitch, V. (1997). The social contract and other later political writings.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Runciman, D. (2009). Hobbes's Theory of Representation: Anti-democratic or proto-

democratic?. In: I. Shapiro, S. Stokes, E. Wood and A. Kirshner, ed., Political

Representation, 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.15-35.

Services.parliament.uk, (2015). Health and Social Care Act 2012 — UK Parliament.

[online] Available at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-

12/healthandsocialcare.html [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

Shapiro, I. (2009). Political representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Skrbiš, Z. and Woodward, I. (n.d.). Cosmopolitanism.

The Power Inquiry, (2005). Power to the People: An Independent Inquiry into Britain's

Deocracy. [online] London: York Publishing Distribution. Available at:

http://www.jrct.org.uk/userfiles/documents/Power%20to%20the%20People.pdf

[Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

Trende, S. (2012). The lost majority. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ukpolitical.info, (2015). Voter turnout at UK general elections 1945 – 2010 | UK Political

Info. [online] Available at: http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm [Accessed 18

Apr. 2015].

Un.org, (2015). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] Available at:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml [Accessed 21 Apr. 2015].

Webb, P. (2004). Party Responses to the Changing Electoral Market in Britain. In: P. Mair,

W. Muller and F. Plasser, ed., Political Parties and Electoral Change, 1st ed. London:

Sage, pp.20-49.

Wells, A. (2015). UK Polling Report. [online] Ukpollingreport.co.uk. Available at:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

35

White, I. (2006). 'Power to the People': the report of power, an independent enquiry into

Britains Democracy. London: Parliament and Constitution Centre.

36

SUPERVISION FORM Please disregard for online submission.

Take this form to each supervision meeting and keep it up-to-date.

Student name and ID:

_________________________________________________________

1. Did a supervision meeting take place in September/October to discuss the proposal?

Yes

No

2. Did the research involve questionnaires or interviews?

Yes

No

If yes, was the ethics form discussed and signed?

Yes

No

Not applicable

Was the wording of the questionnaire/interview schedule approved before the research was

undertaken?

Yes

No

Not applicable

3. How many supervision contacts did you have?

2 or less

3

More than 3

4. Please record the dates you submitted work to your supervisor, either in hard copy or by email:

_______________________________________________________________________

37

_______________________________________________________________________

5. Please record the dates of supervision meetings:

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Supervisor name (no signature required):_________________________________________

Student signature: ___________________________________________________

Date: ____________________