DOCSLIB.ORG

Duverger's Law, Penrose's Power Index And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Duverger's Law, Penrose's Power Index And POLITICAL STUDIES: 2005 VOL 53, 457–476 Duverger’s Law, Penrose’s Power Index and the Unity of the UK Iain McLean Alistair McMillan Dennis Leech Nuffield College Nuffield College University of Warwick As predicted by Duverger’s Law, the UK has had two-party competition for long periods in most electoral districts. However, there are different patterns of two-party competition in different dis- tricts and more than two effective parties in the Commons. Since 1874, parliament has always contained parties wishing to modify the Union and contesting seats only outside England. By cal- culating the Penrose power index for all parties in the House of Commons for all general elections since 1874, we identify when such parties were pivotal. We explain various legislative changes (for example the Crofters Act 1886, the first three Irish Home Rule Bills, the Parliament Act 1911) and non-changes (for example the failure to enact female suffrage before 1914) by reference to the Penrose index scores. The scores also explain how and why policy towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland changed and did not change in the 1970s. A common misunderstanding of Duverger’s Law is that it produces two-party com- petition in legislatures using a plurality electoral system such as the lower houses of Canada, India and the UK. Because political historians have failed to charac- terise the UK party system correctly, they have, in general, failed to notice that Duverger’s Law is compatible with a multiparty legislature, in which parties from outlying parts of the Union may be pivotal. The best index of their pivotality is that which was proposed by Lionel Penrose in 1946. This article uses Penrose’s index to identify the occasions since 1874 on which the outlying parties have had the power to modify the Union or impose other policy priorities. The first and second sections of the article deal with Duverger and Penrose; the third and fourth deal with the power of the periphery since 1874. The conclusion examines the impli- cations of our findings and suggests further research. Duverger’s Law According to Duverger’s Law, ‘The simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two-party system’ (Duverger, 1954, p. 217). Duverger’s Law contains both mechanical and rational calculation components. The mechanical component is the responsiveness (Cox and Katz, 2002, pp. 32–7) of the plurality electoral system. An electoral system may be viewed as a mapping from votes to seats. Let the vote share of parties i and j be denoted by vi and vj and their seat shares by si and sj. Then the mapping may be written as: a si Ê vi ˆ = + e sj Ë v j ¯ © Political Studies Association, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 458 IAIN McLEAN, ALISTAIR McMILLAN AND DENNIS LEECH where e is an error term, and the exponent a denotes the responsiveness of the system. If a = 1, the mapping is proportional representation. If a < 1, the system is relatively unresponsive. If a > 1, the system is relatively responsive. The plurality electoral system is highly responsive as between the two leading parties in nationwide, multidistrict competition. Early work (Parker Smith, 1910; Kendall and Stuart, 1950) assumed a = 3 for general elections to the UK House of Commons. Accordingly, Kendall and Stuart called the relationship the ‘cube law’. However, for some nineteenth-century general elections, a > 3 (McLean, 2001, pp. 87–112). For late twentieth and twenty-first-century general elections, 1 < a < 3 (Curtice and Steed, 1986). This high responsiveness usually guarantees that the largest single party wins more than half of the seats in the House of Commons and forms a single-party admin- istration. Of the 43 UK general elections since 1832 inclusive, 35 (81.40 percent) have resulted in a single party winning more than half of the seats. For a single party to win more than half of the vote is much rarer. In the 33 UK general elec- tions since 1874, the leading party has gained more than half of the vote only six times (that is, 18 percent of the time).1 Four of those six cases were in the nine- teenth century when there were still numerous unopposed returns, especially in Ireland. Only in 1931 and 1935 did the winning party indisputably win more than half of the votes. The joint probability that the largest party will win more than half of the seats and not win more than half of the vote in a UK general election exceeds 0.5. Usually, therefore, only two parties are capable of forming a UK government. Except between 1918 and 1924, no informed citizen has had any reason to doubt which two. By the rational calculation component of Duverger’s Law, agents realise that it is futile for parties to run and for electors to support any candidate except one of the top two in each district. However, this is a statement about what is ratio- nal at district level. Each elector should rationally ask Which parties are in contention in my district? not Which parties are in contention to form the next government of the UK? Since 1983, for instance, the pattern of party competition in England has featured two main sets of districts: those where the two leading parties are Labour and the Conservatives and those where the two leading parties are the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In a few parts of urban England, there are Labour–Liberal Democrat contests. In Scotland and Wales, four parties are in contention: the three main UK-wide parties and the local separatist/nationalist party, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru (PC). In any one district, fewer than four parties are in contention, but the patterns of competition are such that in each country, all four have a reasonable chance. The Conservative Party won one seat in Scotland in 2001. Table 1 displays these patterns. The lower section of Table 1 lists the leading patterns of Duvergerian competition. There are 11 possible combinations of first and second parties.2 However, the table shows that five combinations account for 649 (98.5 percent) of the total contests in 2001: Labour–Conservative (414 seats), Conservative–Liberal Democrat (102 seats), Labour–Nationalist (58 seats), Labour–Liberal Democrat (57 seats) and the 18 seats in Northern Ireland (NI), uncontested by any Great Britain parties. In NI, there are two clearly delineated communities, of unionists and nationalists. Within DUVERGER, PENROSE AND UK UNITY 459 Table 1: Patterns of First and Second Parties’ Competition in the UK at the 2001 General Election Second Party Winning Party Con Lab Lib Dem Nationalist Other Total Con 0 106 58 1 1 166 Lab 308 0 49 54 2 413 Lib Dem 44 8 0 0 0 52 Nationalist 4 4 1 0 0 9 Other 0 1 0 0 18 19 Total 356 119 108 55 21 659 Battlegrounds Number of Seats % of Seats Con/Lab 414 62.8 Con/Lib Dem 102 15.5 Lab/Nat 58 8.8 Lab/Lib Dem 57 8.7 NI 18 2.7 All other patterns 10 1.5 Total 659 100 Notes: ‘Nationalist’ includes seats for both the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. All the Northern Ireland (NI) parties are listed as ‘Other’. Con stands for Conservative; Lab stands for Labour, and Lib Dem stands for Liberal Democrat. each community, there are moderate and extreme parties. The (Northern) Irish Unionists were allied with the Conservatives between 1886 and 1972. The UK parties which wish to weaken or dissolve the Union, are the SNP PC and the main NI nationalist parties, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein (SF). The Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party wish to strengthen it. The operation of Duverger’s Law at constituency level therefore gen- erates multiparty competition at national level, with parties that wish to amend the Union being more likely to be pivotal than minor UK-wide parties. This situation is not new. The SNP and PC have been in contention since the Parliament of 1966–70 when each of them won a by-election. The Irish Unionists have been identifiable as a separate group since 1886; the Irish nationalists since 1832, albeit with a break between 1852 and 1874. Before 1918, Ireland elected 105 members of parliament (MPs). Where the local pattern of two-party competition differs from the standard English pattern, Duverger’s Law may fail to deliver the responsive and exaggerative properties for which it is famous. It may also produce one hegemonic party and 460 IAIN McLEAN, ALISTAIR McMILLAN AND DENNIS LEECH Table 2: The Effective Number of Parties in the House of Commons, 1874–2001 1874–1918 Mean 2.60 Median 2.52 Maximum 3.00 (1886) Minimum 2.22 (1900) 1922–2001 Mean 2.17 Median 2.14 Maximum 3.07 (1923) Minimum 1.27 (1931) 2 Source: Our calculations, using Laakso and Taagepera’s (1979) formula N = 1/ Spi where pi = the ith party’s propor- tion of seats. fragmented opposition parties, each with strength in only some regions of the country, as has frequently happened in Canada and India. A standard measure shows that the effective number in the House of Commons has always exceeded two except in the one-sided cases of 1931 and 1935. On average, Table 2 shows that the Effective Number (EN) score exceeded 2.5 when the whole of Ireland was in the UK, dropping to just over 2.1 on average in the subsequent period.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Father of the House Sarah Priddy
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06399, 17 December 2019 By Richard Kelly Father of the House Sarah Priddy Inside: 1. Seniority of Members 2. History www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06399, 17 December 2019 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Seniority of Members 4 1.1 Determining seniority 4 Examples 4 1.2 Duties of the Father of the House 5 1.3 Baby of the House 5 2. History 6 2.1 Origin of the term 6 2.2 Early usage 6 2.3 Fathers of the House 7 2.4 Previous qualifications 7 2.5 Possible elections for Father of the House 8 Appendix: Fathers of the House, since 1901 9 3 Father of the House Summary The Father of the House is a title that is by tradition bestowed on the senior Member of the House, which is nowadays held to be the Member who has the longest unbroken service in the Commons. The Father of the House in the current (2019) Parliament is Sir Peter Bottomley, who was first elected to the House in a by-election in 1975. Under Standing Order No 1, as long as the Father of the House is not a Minister, he takes the Chair when the House elects a Speaker. He has no other formal duties. There is evidence of the title having been used in the 18th century. However, the origin of the term is not clear and it is likely that different qualifications were used in the past. The Father of the House is not necessarily the oldest Member.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding British and European Political Issues Understanding Politics
    UNDERSTANDING BRITISH AND EUROPEAN POLITICAL ISSUES UNDERSTANDING POLITICS Series editor DUNCAN WATTS Following the review of the national curriculum for 16–19 year olds, UK examining boards have introduced new specifications for first use in 2001 and 2002. A level courses will henceforth be divided into A/S level for the first year of sixth form studies, and the more difficult A2 level thereafter. The Understanding Politics series comprehensively covers the politics syllabuses of all the major examination boards, featuring a dedicated A/S level textbook and three books aimed at A2 students. The books are written in an accessible, user-friendly and jargon-free manner and will be essential to students sitting these examinations. Already published Understanding political ideas and movements Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd Understanding American government and politics Duncan Watts Understanding British and European political issues A guide for A2 politics students NEIL McNAUGHTON Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave Copyright © Neil McNaughton 2003 The right of Neil McNaughton to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9NR, UK and Room 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk Distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA Distribued exclusively in Canada by UBC Press, University of British Columbia, 2029 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 0 7190 6245 4 paperback First published 2003 111009080706050403 10987654321 Typeset by Northern Phototypesetting Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Duverger's Law, Penrose's Power Index and the Unity of the United
    LSE Research Online Article (refereed) Duverger’s Law, Penrose’s Power Index and the unity of the United Kingdom Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan and Dennis Leech LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. You may cite this version as: McLean, I.; McMillan, A. & Leech, D. (2004). Duverger’s Law, Penrose’s Power Index and the unity of the United Kingdom [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000563 This is an electronic version of an Article published in Political studies 53 (3) pp. 457-476 © 2005 Blackwell Publishing. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/PS The authors gratefully acknowledge that work on this paper was partly supported by the Leverhulme Trust (Grant F/07-004m). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk Contact LSE Research Online at: [email protected] Duverger’s Law, Penrose’s Power Index and the Unity of the United Kingdom Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan and Dennis Leech* * McLean (corresponding author) and McMillan: Nuffield College, Oxford OX1 1NF, UK; Leech: Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK 1 Duverger’s Law, Penrose’s Power Index and the Unity of the United Kingdom ABSTRACT As predicted by Duverger’s Law, the UK has two-party competition in each electoral district.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Party Politics of Political Decentralization Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6jw6f00k Author Wainfan, Kathryn Tanya Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Party Politics of Political Decentralization A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan 2018 c Copyright by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Party Politics of Political Decentralization by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Michael F. Thies, Chair In this dissertation, I ask why certain types of parties would agree to support creating or empowering sub-national governments. In particular, I focus on nationalized parties { those that gain support from throughout a country. Political decentralization can negatively impact nationalized parties in at least two ways. First, it reduces the amount of power a party can enjoy should it win control of the national-level government. Second, previous studies show that political decentralization can increase party denationalization, meaning regional parties gain more support, even during national-level elections. I argue that nationalized parties may support decentralization when doing so reduces the ideological conflicts over national-level policy among voters whose support they seek. By altering political institutions, a party may be able to accommodate differing policy prefer- ences in different parts of the country, or limit the damage to the party's electoral fortunes such differences could create.
    [Show full text]
  • Enoch Powell and the Sovereignty of Parliament Transcript
    Enoch Powell and the Sovereignty of Parliament Transcript Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2013 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 12 March 2013 Enoch Powell and the Sovereignty of Parliament Vernon Bogdanor Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for braving the bad weather to come to this lecture, which is the fourth in a series on post-War politicians who have “made the weather”, that is, set the political agenda, even though none of them became Prime Minister. The first three lectures were on: Aneurin Bevan, who was founder of the National Health Service; Iain Macleod, the apostle of rapid decolonisation in Africa; and Roy Jenkins, the pioneer of liberal legislation on personal liberties and race relations in the 1960s, and the apostle also of party realignment. Today’s lecture, the fourth, is on Enoch Powell, and he pronounced his surname, incidentally, “Pow-ell” and not “Pole” as people sometimes do. Enoch Powell was a very popular politician and there is a possibility that if we had had a presidential system of direct election, that he might have become leader of the country, though I think the probability is not, but there is a possibility he would have been. But, unlike the first three people I have talked about, Bevan, Macleod and Jenkins, he had no major legislative achievements to his credit, and part of the reason for that, he was in Government only for a very short time, a much shorter time than perhaps most people imagine. He was a member of the Cabinet for just fifteen months, and he held junior posts in Government for a further four years, so he was not a man of Government or of any legislative achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaritch Catalogue 1430 Philosophy, Politics and Economics
    QUARITCH CATALOGUE 1430 PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS AND ECONOMICS (a simple thematic index is provided at the end of the catalogue) BERNARD QUARITCH 40 South Audley Street London W1K 2PR [email protected] QUARITCH CATALOGUE 1430 PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS AND ECONOMICS A MEMOIR OF JOHN ADAM, PRESENTED TO THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER LORD GRENVILLE BY WILLIAM ADAM 1. [ADAM, William (editor).] Description and Representation of the Mural Monument, Erected in the Cathedral of Calcutta, by General Subscription, to the Memory of John Adam, Designed and Executed by Richard Westmacott, R.A. [?Edinburgh: ?William Adam, circa 1830]. 4to, pp. [4 (blank ll.)], [1]-2 (‘Address of the British Inhabitants of Calcutta, to John Adam, on his Embarking for England in March 1825’), [2 (contents, verso blank)], [2 (blank l.)], [2 (title, verso blank)], [1]-2 (‘Description of the Monument’), [2 (‘Inscription on the Base of the Tomb’, verso blank)], [2 (‘Translation of Claudian’)], [1 (‘Extract of a Letter from … Reginald Heber … to … Charles Williams Wynn’)], [2 (‘Extract from a Sermon of Bishop Heber, Preached at Calcutta on Christmas Day, 1825’)], [1 (blank)]; mounted engraved plate on india by J. Horsburgh after Westmacott, retaining tissue guard; some light spotting, a little heavier on plate; contemporary straight-grained [?Scottish] black morocco [?for Adam for presentation], endpapers watermarked 1829, boards with broad borders of palmette and flower-and-thistle rolls, upper board lettered in blind ‘Monument to John Adam Erected at Calcutta 1827’, turn-ins roll-tooled in blind, mustard- yellow endpapers, all edges gilt; slightly rubbed and scuffed, otherwise very good; provenance: William Wyndham Grenville, Baron Grenville, 3 March 1830 (1759-1834, autograph presentation inscription from William Adam on preliminary blank and tipped-in autograph letter signed from Adam to Grenville, Edinburgh, 6 March 1830, 3pp on a bifolium, addressed on final page).
    [Show full text]
  • Member Since 1979 191
    RESEARCH PAPER 09/31 Members since 1979 20 APRIL 2009 This Research Paper provides a complete list of all Members who have served in the House of Commons since the general election of 1979, together with basic biographical and parliamentary data. The Library and the House of Commons Information Office are frequently asked for such information and this Paper is based on the data we collate from published sources to assist us in responding. Since this Paper is produced part way through the 2005 Parliament, a subsequent edition will be prepared after its dissolution to create a full record of its MPs. The cut off date for the material in this edition is 31 March 2009. Please note that a new edition of this Research Paper is now available entitled: Members 1979-2010 [RP10/33] Oonagh Gay PARLIAMENT AND CONSTITUTION CENTRE HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 09/16 Saving Gateway Accounts Bill: Committee Stage Report 24.02.09 09/17 Autism Bill [Bill 10 of 2008-09] 25.02.09 09/18 Northern Ireland Bill [Bill 62 of 2008-09] 02.03.09 09/19 Small Business Rate Relief (Automatic Payment) Bill [Bill 13 of 03.03.09 2008-09] 09/20 Economic Indicators, March 2009 04.03.09 09/21 Statutory Redundancy Pay (Amendment) Bill [Bill 12 of 2008-09] 11.03.09 09/22 Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill [Bill 70 of 2008-09] 12.03.09 09/23 Welfare Reform Bill: Committee Stage Report 13.03.09 09/24 Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of 17.03.09 Discrimination) Bill [Bill 29 of 2008-09] 09/25 Fuel Poverty Bill
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of Stars
    Gallery of Stars A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD Panel A A1 Darryl Neil Michael Pithie A20 Lydia and David Skinner to A53 To celebrate the birth of Eloise Maud commemorate the work of Basil Watson on 30th September 2011 A2 To Ida Wilkie to celebrate her Skinner in the Gallery from 1954-1966 99th birthday from the family A54 Mr Barr Chittick A22 Joanna Cole-Hamilton A3 Anonymous A55 Charlie McNally A23 Patricia R Andrew A5 Linda and Ryan Evans A56 Miss Diana Ritchie, In memory A25 Jennifer Bute for John Bute of my mother Margaret Ritchie A6 To celebrate the life of Ben Chudleigh A26 Patricia McHale, Ilkeston, Derbyshire A57 In grateful memory of our parents, A7 Tilly McNeill Gordon and Doreen Drummond, A27 Catriona Burns on behalf of Finlay A8 To celebrate the life of who loved the Galleries of Edinburgh. William Hunter Read A V B (Nick) Norman Gordon, Andrew, and Ian Drummond. A28 Brian Rose A9 To Celebrate the Birth of A59 Doreen Anderson Lamb, from Penelope Lily Morton 27/9/11 A29 Iain Gordon Brown Graham & Susan, to celebrate Mum’s A10 Joan Tranent, many are the stars I A30 Judith J Chisholm 90th Birthday in the building where see, but in my eye no star like thee. she firewatched during the war A32 Anonymous Love you always, Terry A60 A special person deserves a special A33 Angela Holliday, West Linton A11 Ava Elizabeth Murray star.
    [Show full text]
  • The Assault on Liberty Introduction – Runnymede and All That Winston Churchill Described the Magna Carta As “The Foundation
    The Assault on Liberty Introduction – Runnymede and all that Winston Churchill described the Magna Carta as “the foundation of principles and systems of government of which neither King John or his nobles dreamed”. Now in Politics we’re used to the law of unintended consequences. Normally it is the bad outcome of good intentions, that you set out to create a good law and it goes wrong, I don’t know, say the child support agency or the war on Iraq, whatever it might be, that went wrong and we’re normally afflicted with this. What we very rarely see, is something like Magna Carta, which must go down as the greatest example of the law of unintended consequences in British history, because here you had a deal, frankly a slightly squalid deal, between a bunch of robber barons, greedy, robber barons and an even greedier King. Yet out of that slightly squalid deal, we have got the underpinning of the greatest history of freedom in the history of the world. The underpinning of the greatest liberties in the history of the world. Not just ours, but America’s, all of the Commonwealth and much of the rest of the world, have copied what we’ve done from that. So a formidable, unintended consequence, but one of enormous benefit, for not just ourselves, but for the entire civilized world. So that’s in a way a surprise, but in another way its not, because it was not conceived in isolation, it was built on the emerging common law system, created by Henry II a century before, and that created the fertile ground in which grew uniform and consistent courts, respecting the idea of ‘precedent’.
    [Show full text]
  • Geschichte Neuerwerbungsliste 2. Quartal 2002
    Geschichte Neuerwerbungsliste 2. Quartal 2002 Geschichte: Allgemeines und Einführungen ........................................................................................................... 2 Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtstheorie.......................................................................................................... 2 Teilbereiche der Geschichte (Politische Geschichte, Kultur-, Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte allgemein)........ 3 Historische Hilfswissenschaften.............................................................................................................................. 5 Ur- und Frühgeschichte; Mittelalter- und Neuzeitarchäologie ................................................................................ 8 Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, Geschichte der Entdeckungen, Geschichte der Weltkriege ..................................... 12 Alte Geschichte ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Europäische Geschichte in Mittelalter und Neuzeit .............................................................................................. 22 Deutsche Geschichte ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Geschichte der deutschen Laender und Staedte..................................................................................................... 35 Geschichte der Schweiz, Österreichs, Ungarns,
    [Show full text]
  • Psa Awards Winners 2000, 2003 - 2016
    PSA AWARDS WINNERS 2000, 2003 - 2016 AWARDS TO POLITICIANS Politician of the Year Sadiq Khan (2016) George Osborne (2015) Theresa May (2014) John Bercow (2012) Alex Salmond (2011) David Cameron and Nick Clegg (2010) Barack Obama (2009) Boris Johnson (2008) Alex Salmond (2007) David Cameron (2006) Tony Blair (2005) Gordon Brown (2004) Ken Livingstone (2003) Lifetime Achievement in Politics Gordon Brown (2016) Harriet Harman (2015) David Blunkett (2014) Jack Straw (2013) Sir Richard Leese (2012) Bill Morris (2012) Chris Patten (2012) David Steel (2011) Michael Heseltine (2011) Neil Kinnock (2010) Geoffrey Howe (2010) Rhodri Morgan (2009) Ian Paisley (2009) Paddy Ashdown (2007) Prof John Hume (2006) Lord David Trimble (2006) Sir Tam Dalyell (2005) Kenneth Clarke QC (2004) Baroness Williams of Crosby (2003) Dr Garrett Fitzgerald (2003) Roy Jenkins (2000) Denis Healey (2000) Edward Heath (2000) Special Award for Lifetime Achievement in Politics Aung San Suu Kyi (2007) 1 Opposition Politician of the Year Theresa May (2003) Parliamentarian of the Year Baroness Smith of Basildon (2016) Sarah Wollaston (2015) Nicola Sturgeon (2014) Natascha Engel (2013) Margaret Hodge (2012) Ed Balls (2011) Patrick Cormack (2010) Dennis Skinner (2010) Tony Wright (2009) Vince Cable (2008) John Denham (2007) Richard Bacon MP (2006) Sir Menzies Campbell (2005) Gwyneth Dunwoody (2005) Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC (2004) Robin Cook (2003) Tony Benn (2000) Political Turkey of the Year Veritas (2005) The Law Lords (2004) Folyrood - the Scottish Parliament building
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Reproduced in W. G. Knop, Compiler, Beware of the English: German Propa- ganda Exposes England (London, Hamish Hamilton, 1939), p. 147. 2. Lewis F. Richardson, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels (London, Stevens, 1960), pp. 173–175. Britain had participated in most wars, Germany in most bat- tles, though Richardson warned his readers about the tentative nature of the statistics. 3. Ramsay Muir, The Expansion of Europe (London, Constable, 1935), p. 2. For a different formulation of the same pervasive thought, see Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History (London, Fontana, 1960), p. 44 and Sir J. R. Sleeley, The Expansion of England (London, Macmillan, 1900), p. 212. 4. Philip Everts and Pierangelo Isernia (eds), Public Opinion and the International Use of Force (London, Routledge, 2001). 5. For a recent examination of the motives behind British and US foreign policy, see Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World (London, Atlantic Books, 2007). 6. Statement on Defence Estimates 1996, Cm 3223 (London, HMSO, 2006), p. 3. 7. The Military Balance 2008 (London, International Institute for Strategic Stud- ies/Routledge, 2008), p. 161. See also the speech by Tony Blair at the R.U.S.I. on 11 January 2007. 8. François Crouzet, ‘The impact of the French Wars on the British Economy’ in H. T. Dickinson (ed.), Britain and French Revolution, 1789–1815 (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1989), p. 195. For casualty statistics on the First World War, see David Stevenson, 1914–1918: The History of the First World War (London, Allen Lane, 2004 ), p.
    [Show full text]