Chapter 3. Explaining UK Politics and Policy Making

This post introduces chapter 3 of Politics and Policy Making in the UK by Paul Cairney and Sean Kippin.

The UK political system often seems confusing because commentators are juggling two stories of policymaking.

The first is the official account of how policy is, and should be, made: the Westminster story. It emphasises strong, responsible, policymaking by very few powerful minsters at the heart of government.

The second comes from accumulated wisdom from policy studies about how policy is really made: the complex government story. It emphasises profound limits to central government control and the existence of many ‘centres’.

In that context, our question for reflection is: if the official story is so inaccurate, why does it matter and endure?

Story 1.The Westminster story (or model)

This story begins with how policy should be made: you only know who to praise or blame if you know who is in charge. Democratic accountability requires strong and decisive government. The ‘British political tradition’ is of responsible government: doing what is right for the public (even if it is unpopular).

To that end, the Westminster model is backed by measures to ensure strong central government:

• Representative democracy. Vote for people to act in your constituency’s interests.
• A sovereign Parliament delegating power to a strong executive. Maintain strong government legitimised by an elected (and unelected) legislature.
• Plurality elections and majority party control. Exaggerate support for the winning candidates, and biggest party, to concentrate power.
• Unitary state. Maintain central government control across the UK.
• Prime Minister and Cabinet Government. Vest overall decision-making in an executive committee filled with senior ministers and led by the most senior minister.
• Individual Ministerial Responsibility. A senior minister is in complete control of each government department, supported by civil servants loyal to the government.

This official story provides the language that most comentators use to describe who is in charge and should be held to account. It also underpins common criticisms about how the UK political system works in practice, inclduding:

• Politics is too distant from ‘the people’. Ministers make choices from the top-down, with too little regard for the wishes of the UK population.
• The ‘political class’ is an elite profession, largely of white, middle or upper class, private schooled and Oxbridge educated, men. It not represent the general public

• 

• 

• Politicians are too keen to play the ‘blame game’, hoarding power for their own benefit but blaming others when things go wrong.

Story 2. Complex government and multi-level policymaking

This story could focus on a democratic alternative. First, avoid power hoarding by sharing responsibilities with international organisations (like the European Union), devolved governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and English regions, and respect the electoral mandates of local governments. Indeed, perhaps this approach could aid a shift from ‘majoritarian’ towards ‘consensus’ democracy

Second, delegating policy delivery makes sense to most UK governments, seeking to set broad strategy rather than get involved in the details. Further, some organisations – such as ‘quangos’ – need some autonomy to give independent advice or proper audit of government functions.

However, policy studies tends to focus on empirical reality: how it really works, and the necessity of many policymaking centres. Here is a list of statements with links to separate posts on the underlying concepts:

• Policymakers can only pay attention to a tiny proportion of their responsibilities (bounded rationality, uncertainty/ ambiguity). They pay disproportionate attention to some and ignore the rest (PET).
• Policymakers delegate most issues to civil servants, who rely on specialists – including interest groups – for information and advice (policy communities).
• We say ‘governance’ (not government) to describe blurry boundaries between those who have formal responsibility and informal influence over policy (MLG).
• People or organisations make policy as they deliver (implementation in complex systems).
• Policy problems transcend traditional government departments – like finance, health, education, justice – but policymaking is ‘fragmented’ and difficult to join-up.
• Governments inherit the commitments of their predecessors, giving them limited room for manoeuvre.

If the official story is inaccurate, why does it matter and endure?

Democratic accountability via UK general elections still seems to be the ‘only game in town’, and the Westminster story seems to dominate most coverage of UK politics. Why? It provides a coherent and defendable story of who should be responsible. Even if minsters don’t live up to expectations, they still set the policy agenda and direct government resources, to benefit some groups and punish others (social construction and policy design).

It is also difficult to promote a ‘complex government’ alternative, even when decentralization seems to be inevitable and to make sense. Academics may want politicians to stop wasting their time on a misleading story, and to focus instead of managing policy pragmatically given their limitations (advice from complex systems). Yet, this story of complexity does not mix well with the Westminster story.

What happens when these stories collide?

Some ministers actually want to possess and use central powers to deliver their manifesto commitments. Some have tried to be pragmatic about their limits, but struggled to defend decentralisation. Some seem only interested in power-hoarding when they can, and blame games when they can’t. It is difficult to know what they want to do, if they can do it, and how they narrate their activities (longer discussion of King Canute).

The long-term result is a bit of a mess. There have been many public sector reforms in the name of centralising policy and decentralising delivery, including privatisation, ‘quasi-markets’, and public sector reforms (which we discuss in Chapters 4 and 5).

This mess and complexity makes the UK policy process very difficult to understand, prompting a lot of metaphors (e.g. policy communities and ‘patchwork quilts’ of delivery) or direct criticisms (e.g. the ‘incoherent state’)

Take home messages

The Westminster story remains inaccurate but important.

The complex government story is more accurate but less understandable.

It is difficult for ministers to juggle both stories (but they have to).

It has produced very different responses, and many have added to the mess.

This is a UK-centric story, but key elements have wider applicability (explored in the 500, 750, and 1000 words series).