Isabelle Hertner

The term ‘toxic masculinity’ (TM) was coined in the 1990s by sociologists and psychologists. It has since been appropriated by scholars and commentators interested in gendered behaviours, policies and outcomes in politics. However, despite the attention belatedly being paid to masculinities as part of that research, the analysis of, specifically, TM’s part in shaping political practices remains underdeveloped. This article proposes a move in this direction by designing a conceptual framework for exploring TM inside political parties. We adapt findings from the original TM literature to generate a series of indicators of TM spanning the vital realms of party political activity: its policy positions, accompanying discourse and the formal and informal practices – often behind the scenes – that express the party’s values broader ethos and outlook. We then test the framework using a paired comparison of two parties of the populist right where we might expect to see relatively high levels...

Does European integration contribute to, or even accelerate, the erosion of intra-party democracy? This book is about improving our understanding of political parties as democratic organisations in the context of multi-level governance. It analyses the impact of European Union (EU) membership on power dynamics, focusing on the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party (PS), and the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The purpose of this book is to investigate who within the three parties determines EU policies and selects EU specialists, such as the candidates for European parliamentary elections and EU spokespersons. The book utilises a principal-agent framework to investigate the delegation of power inside the three parties across multiple levels and faces. It draws on over 65 original interviews with EU experts from the three national parties and the Party of European Socialists (PES) and an e-mail questionnaire. This book reveals that European policy has largely remaine...

This article analyses the CDU/CSU’s immigration policies and discourses during the Chancellorship of Angela Merkel. In doing so, it makes four observations. First, the article highlights that the CDU/CSU became proactive when it came to passing new and far-reaching immigration and integration legislation. Second, it is argued that these policies have sent conflicting messages, torn between the opening and closing of Germany’s borders, and between welcoming diversity and demanding cultural assimilation. Third, this article identifies and explains six ways in which the parties have framed immigration in their common election manifestos from 2005-2017: as a cultural, economic, security, humanitarian, European, and gendered issue. Fourth, this study analyses the intra-party divisions that came to a head during the migration crisis: the place of Islam in Germany and the creation of a cap on the number of refugees that Germany would take in. Here, it is highlighted that in contrast to Merkel, the CSU, but also parts of the CDU, have called for more restrictive immigration policies and cultural assimilation. These findings are explained with reference to the political context: the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany and the 2018 Bavarian regional elections.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are often portrayed as Britain's pro-European parties. Indeed, both parties express a keen interest in keeping Britain in the European Union (EU) and in promoting a constructive engagement with other member states. Yet, to what extent can the two parties be characterized as Europhiles? In this article, we develop Taggart and Szczerbiak's (2008) concept of hard and soft Euroscepticism, extend it to Europhile party positions, and apply it to Labour and the Liberal Democrats' recent European policies. For this purpose, we analyse manifestos and party leaders' key speeches on the EU. We find, overall, that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are 'soft' Europhiles whose discourses have focused on EU reform. Yet, while their EU policies are very similar, their EU strategies differ: the Labour leadership have generally tried to contain the salience of EU issues, whereas the Liberal Democrats have followed a more offensive EU strategy after 2014. This can best be explained through electoral incentives and internal dynamics.

At a time when most national parties in Europe are losing members , parties at the European level, or Europarties, have introduced membership for individuals. This article is the first to investigate, compare, and explain the individual membership of Europarties. It focuses on the rights of the individual members to participate in the formulation of policies and the selection of leadership candidates. For this purpose, the article develops an index that charts the participatory rights. In doing so, it highlights a high degree of variation between the Europarties. It argues that these differences can be explained through a combination of four factors: the Europarties' electoral successes; the attitudes of the national member parties towards individual membership; the motivation and activism of the individual members; and Europarty funding rules. The article argues that if Europarties want to be seen as 'real' parties, they should grant their grassroots members real participa-tory powers.

The term 'toxic masculinity' was coined in the 1990s by sociologists and psychologists. It has since been appropriated by scholars and commentators interested in gendered behaviours and outcomes in politics. However, despite the attention belatedly being paid to masculinities as part of that research, our appreciation of, specifically, toxic masculinity's part in shaping political practices remains underdeveloped. This article proposes a move in this direction by designing a conceptual framework for exploring toxic masculinity inside political parties. We adapt findings from the original toxic masculinity literature to generate a series of indicators of toxic masculinity spanning the policy and discursive aspects of party political action. We then test the framework using a paired comparison of two parties of the populist right where we might expect to see relatively high levels of toxic masculinity: the Alternative for Germany and the UK Independence Party. Our empirical findings give us confidence that drawing on the concept of toxic masculinity can provide us with novel insights into the interplay between masculinity and political party cultures. We also hope that it will inspire a significant body of new research into toxic masculinity in political parties from across the party spectrum as well as globally.

This textbook chapter has a number of learning objectives:
■ To gain an overview of the history of female and the LGBTQ community's representation in British politics.
■ To appreciate the gradual, but still unequal empowerment of women. ■ To understand the differences in gender politics between Westminster and the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
■ To investigate differences in female leadership and membership of Britain's parties.
■ To examine what recent governments have done for women and the LGBTQ community.
■ To understand that the House of Commons is still not a very 'diversity-sensitive' place.
■ To note that female politicians, and especially those from an ethnic or religious minority, are harassed more often than men.