‘Campaigning in poetry, governing in prose?’ The development of Conservative Party immigration policy in government and in opposition since 1945

This thesis seeks to explain the development of the British Conservative Party’s immigration policy from 1945 to 2015. It draws on Gamble’s contrasting of the ‘politics of power’ versus the ‘politics of support’ to consider the extent to which Conservative immigration policy is influenced by periods in government and periods in opposition. Harmel and Janda’s three ‘drivers’ of party change – electoral motivations, the leadership of the party, and factions within the party – are built upon to explain changes to the Conservatives’ immigration policy. An interpretivist approach is conducive to the making of an empirically-rich ‘thick descriptive’ account of the Conservative Party’s immigration policy-making. The account is based on interviews with key actors – including current and former politicians and senior civil servants – combined with analysis of archive material and contemporary media sources and memoirs. This thesis concludes that periods in government and periods in opposition do influence the making of immigration policy in different ways. During the 70-year period, what was implemented by the Conservatives in office was less far-reaching – and less restrictionist – than what had been proposed in opposition. Within this key contextual difference, a modified version of Harmel and Janda’s three drivers of change is useful in explaining the development of Conservative immigration policy – with some exceptions. Through tracking changes to the Conservative Party’s immigration policy over many parliaments, this thesis provides three main contributions. First, it emphasises the significance of political parties to the development of immigration policy. Second, in focusing on periods in opposition – which are often overlooked – as well as periods in government, this work offers a basis for reconceptualising policy-making. Third, in bringing together existing theories into a synthesis framework of party policy-making, this thesis offers a new approach to the theoretical literature, which could be modified and tested in other contexts

MPs and their constituencies

MPs are often accused - especially by the popular press, populist parties and politicians, and by the Twitterati - of living in a 'Westminster bubble'. MPs themselves occasionally casually invoke the term to portray their colleagues at Westminster as insulated and isolated from the daily concerns of the rest of the UK's populace. Yet, this clichéd and caricatured picture fails to capture the routine, indeed institutionalised, representational pinpricks that perpetually puncture this bubble. Every day, MPs in acting as the representatives of their respective geographical areas inject the opinions, concerns and tribulations of their constituents into the workings of parliament. Such representational work is often overlooked or ignored by outside observers and commentators, but in the words of one ex-MP, Paul Burstow (2016), it provides a necessary 'reality check' for all MPs that links them to the lives of those they are elected to represent. Tragically it took the murder of Jo Cox, MP for Batley and Spen, while performing her constituency representative role in June 2016 to remind populists and the wider public, all too briefly, that MPs don't inhabit a Westminster-centric bubble but are in fact rooted in localities throughout the UK. This chapter examines, therefore, the dimensions of this constituency representative role: of what 'constituency' means for MPs and their local electorates; and how perceptions of locality affect the work of MPs and the expectations of constituents alike

Immigration and asylum policy under Cameron's Conservatives

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in British Politics. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Partos, Rebecca, and Tim Bale. "Immigration and asylum policy under Cameron’s Conservatives." British Politics 10.2 (2015): 169-184 is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bp.2015.20© 2015, Palgrave Macmilla

Having One's Cake and Eating It Too: Cameron's Conservatives and Immigration

The May 2010 general election represented a change in tone on immigration and asylum policy for the Conservative party. Although its manifesto still contained a promise to limit numbers and expressed concern about the abuse of student visas, the Party's previous fixation with asylum seekers had disappeared. This article considers the rationale for these developments in the light of David Cameron's election as leader in late 2005 and his efforts from then on to reposition his party. Cameron's initial silence on this issue and his appointment of a moderate as immigration spokesman were part of an attempt both to shift the focus onto the economic impact of migration and, more broadly, to ‘decontaminate the Tory brand’ in order to gain ‘permission to be heard’ by small-l liberals who were critical to the Party's electoral recovery but alienated by hard-line stances. That said, immigration was never entirely forgotten even in this early period and was always seen, so long as it was carefully handled, as an issue capable of benefitting the Tories. As such, it was skilfully factored back into the Party's offer from late 2007 onwards. In government, the Conservatives may have the upper hand on immigration over their junior coalition partner, but this is no guarantee that they will be able to deliver the outcomes they promised