|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174673
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
the introduction of devolution in Scotland and Wales, and its reintroduction in Northern Ireland, has wrought a welcome transformation in the governance of the United Kingdom, though this is not a point that contributors to recent debates on devolution dwell on. Instead, for many commentators the extraordinary first few months of the Covid‐19 pandemic have highlighted the tensions inherent within the devolution settlement, notably the curious double role now performed by the British government, which is in charge of the response of the United Kingdom across certain policy areas and in others (notably health) functions as an unacknowledged government of England alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
149200
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
172389
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What do the different wings of the Labour Party actually disagree about? Sometimes it seems like almost everything, in spite of the warm words about party unity offered by the various leadership contenders in recent weeks. But on closer investigation, the disagreement between left and right is less about policy—on which there is in fact some convergence about the broad direction of travel—and more about entitlement: which faction is the legitimate legatee of the battered, but still attractive, Labour tradition? Since this disagreement is existential—about which side is authentically Labour—it is also a bitter and intractable one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
161656
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The twentieth anniversary of Labour's 1997 election victory passed without much comment last year—among other reasons, the hectic pace of political developments left little space for historical debate. But two revealing reflections on New Labour's legacy did surface towards the end of 2017. James Graham's play about the recent history of the Labour party, Labour of Love, debuted in London in late September and Gordon Brown's memoir, My Life, Our Times, was published in November.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
130950
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the key arguments and intellectual influences that have come together over recent decades to produce the case for Scottish independence. In particular, the article draws attention to three crucial, but discordant, ideological themes that have become recurrent features of Scottish nationalist discourse: an analysis of the British state indebted to the New Left; a surprising enthusiasm for the politics of the British labour movement; and a belief that we are witnessing the end of the era of absolute state sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
168735
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This issue of Political Quarterly commemorates the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a timely subject, not only because of the anniversary, but also because the status of human rights has become a contested issue in British politics. Only a few years ago, the protection of human rights seemed to be a relatively uncontentious political objective, a consensual expression of the liberal values that were presumed to be the lodestars of any decent political order. More recently, a steady drum beat of scepticism about human rights has become a progressively louder presence in British public life. This scepticism has now been given a more analytical presentation by Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice and historian, who devoted his 2019 Reith Lectures on BBC Radio 4 to making the case that the law—particularly human rights law—has begun to usurp the place of democratic politics, to the disadvantage of Britain’s constitutional equilibrium. According to Sumption, decisions that were once the province of Parliament, or which existed outside of legal regulation altogether, have increasingly been subsumed into ‘law’s expanding empire’. This is a realm controlled by judges, whose imperium possesses none of the democratic accountability that constrains elected politicians.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
155400
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
at the outset of the 2017 election campaign, there seemed to be a good chance that the Labour party would be broken—possibly irreparably—on the anvil of nationalism. After all, that was why Theresa May had called the election. Enormous credit is therefore due to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left for running an excellent campaign that capitalised on the abject weaknesses of the Conservatives and ultimately saved Labour from what many people—including me—thought would be a shattering historic defeat. After two years of bleak political news, the forces of conservatism in Britain have finally lost some ground. Much conventional wisdom now looks questionable as a result of the election, but I want to focus here on one point that raises some challenges for all parts of the Labour party, including for Jeremy Corbyn and the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
152558
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that a return to the history of progressive political thought can help us to think afresh about what a renewed centre-left politics might look like today. The article identifies some significant aspects of this history that attracted little attention in earlier debates over the British progressive tradition—in particular, debates about social ownership, nationalism and distributism. This revisionist history of British progressivism points the way towards some common ideological ground that could provide a starting point for a new dialogue between different ‘progressive’ political parties and interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
165551
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
it has been widely observed that something has gone awry with the Conservative party. Where once its watchwords were pragmatism and economic competence, solicitous commentators now point out that the party is dominated by a fixation with leaving the EU that has, at best, only a nodding acquaintance with the realities of modern capitalism. But the idea that the Conservatives recently took a wrong turn relies on a rather fuzzy historical contrast between an earlier, less doctrinaire conservatism and the ferocious euroscepticism that has recently become synonymous with the party. Michael Oakeshott has even been pressed into service by broadsheet columnists to illustrate this point. Unlike the Jacobins on the Conservative benches who will only settle for their ideal Brexit, Oakeshott argued that to be conservative ‘is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to Utopian bliss’.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|