Search

This article explores the interplay between crises, opportunities and democratic change in the United Kingdom. A vast body of scholarship underlines that crises open 'windows of opportunity' that can occasionally lead to radical shifts in the role of the state and the design of public policy. Even when a radical shift occurs, however, it has often proved temporary, with relationships and processes quickly reverting to pre-crisis modes once the immediacy of the crisis abates. This may not be true of our present period of crisis following the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences of decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and increasing concentration of resources in a small minority of individuals and organisations are being exacerbated by climate change, geopolitical conflict and new waves of disease. The challenge for policymakers in the UK now is heightened by evidence that suggests that nudging, a libertarian paternalist means of promoting certain ends, is ineffective. Policymakers who have long used state neutrality between conceptions of the good as the justification for not promoting certain ends now have to confront a real ethical dilemma: coerce to achieve specific outcomes or invest in addressing the social determinants that actually affect behaviour. This article suggests that contrary to decades of opposition to redistribution among UK policymakers, only the latter is consistent with libertarian paternalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a vast literature on political disaffection, populism, "pitchfork politics," and the emergence of an "age of anger" testifies, the nature of democratic politics and the socio-political context in which it operates appear to have shifted sharply during the last decade. This is reflected in the rise of challenger parties, the election of unorthodox politicians, and widespread concern regarding the "crisis," "death," or "end" of democracy. Existing analyses have, however, understandably adopted a conventional model of party-based representative politics as their main interpretive lens or reference point to make sense of these changes. This article adopts a far bolder position. It suggests that a new form of "grievance politics" has emerged that constitutes a distinct and novel species of representative democracy. Grievance politics is defined by the fuelling and funneling of negative emotions and various blame-based political strategies which explicitly challenge and confound many of the core principles and values that have traditionally underpinned conventional conceptions of party politics. It is the tension between party politics and grievance politics—and their contemporary co-existence as competing modes of political representation—which this article seeks to underline and through this, to develop a clearer understanding of possible futures for representative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]