Search

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., Author(s): Matthew Flinders [sup.1] , Markus Hinterleitner [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.11835.3e, 0000 0004 1936 9262, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, , Sheffield, UK (2) grid.5252.0, 0000 0004 1936 [...]

Background: Tooth extractions are the most common cause of hospital admissions for children in England. Water fluoridation has the potential to reduce this number by 60%, is backed by the scientific and public health communities, and yet is currently consumed by only 10% of the population. Aims and objectives: This 'evidence-policy gap' is explored through Kingdon's 'multi-streams approach' which provides insights into the circumstances under which water fluoridation has made it onto the political agenda, the rationale underpinning opponent and advocate policy positions, and the role of the political arena in fostering or hindering policy action. Methods: Over 100 primary documents were reviewed to develop an understanding of the scientific and ethical arguments for and against water fluoridation, as well as to identify how they have all historically sought to mobilise their policy preferences. Eleven consultations were also conducted with stakeholders as part of the knowledge exchange process. Findings: The key finding of this research is that evidence is only likely to trigger policy change if it emerges into a receptive sociopolitical context. In substantiating this claim we identify evidence not of an 'evidence-policy gap' but of a more complex and multidimensional 'evidence-policy-politics gap'. Discussion and conclusions: The findings contribute to a range of debates in relation to--(1) the apparent irreconcilability of background ideas about what ought to form the basis of public health policymaking; (2) the presence of differing evidential standards that create an uneven playing field; and (3) the central underpinning role of politics in public health policymaking.

Author(s): Matthew Flinders [sup.1] [sup.2] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.11835.3e, 0000 0004 1936 9262, University of Sheffield, , Sheffield, UK (2) grid.499589.0, 0000 0001 2185 9832, Political Studies Association, , London, [...]

It is now two decades since the Advisory Group on Citizenship, commissioned by the newly elected Labour government, recommended the introduction of statutory citizenship education. On the twentieth anniversary of the eponymously named 'Crick Report,' this article presents the findings of a rigorous mixed-methods study of citizenship educators in the UK. This research suggests that teachers continue to lack a shared understanding of citizenship, conceptually and pedagogically, and also reveals an emphasis amongst teachers upon individualistic notions of good citizenship that are reflective of national, and increasingly global, political discourse. The findings are analysed using a new conceptual framework--the declarative--procedural paradigm--which is developed here to understand the relationship between political and normatively driven visions of democratic citizenship and classroom pedagogy. In doing so the article adds, theoretically and substantively, to the specific research pool of citizenship studies and broader debates about political disengagement.

This paper develops and applies the concept of accountability styles for analyzing and comparing accountability practices in different countries. This is relevant as there is considerable scholarship on public sector accountability but only very few comparative studies. Extant studies have shown that national styles of accountability are both marked by convergence as well as the resilience of national differences. The concept of accountability style is adopted to describe and interpret how and why accountability practices differ between administrative systems. It does so by analyzing practices of accountability of public sector agencies in four European democracies with different state traditions: the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. These countries vary with regards to state strength (interventionist propensity) and administrative concentration (high or low centralization). The analysis focuses on the accountability of arms' length agencies which lends itself for comparisons across counties. The paper shows that the national political-administrative context crucially shapes practices of accountability and accountability regimes of agencies. The Norwegian accountability style is characterized as 'centralized and convenient'. The UK-style is equally centralized yet not so convenient as it incurs high accountability-process costs on agencies. Switzerland is marked by limited hierarchical accountability. And the Dutch accountability style is comparatively 'broad and informal'. State strength and administrative concentration explain some of the variance while historical legacies explain additional national variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 crisis has served not just to instil fear in the populace but to highlight the importance of fear as a motivating dynamic in politics. The gradual emergence of political-philosophical approaches calling for concern for 'positive' emotions may have made sense under non-pandemic conditions. Now, however, describing fear in the face of a deadly pandemic as 'irrational' or born of 'ignorance' seems 'irrational' and 'ignorant'. In this article, we draw upon the work of John Gray and behavioural science to present a defence of fear. We show how the pandemic has highlighted deficits in the work of four thinkers highly critical of fear: Martha Nussbaum, Zygmunt Bauman, Hannah Arendt and Sara Ahmed. We argue that, if such approaches are to be of value in anything other than optimal conditions, then they have to acknowledge the fundamental role of fear in helping human beings to pursue fundamental interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Co-production is a risky method of social inquiry. It is time-consuming, ethically complex, emotionally demanding, inherently unstable, vulnerable to external shocks, subject to competing demands and it challenges many disciplinary norms. This is what makes it so fresh and innovative. And yet these research-related risks are rarely discussed and, as a result, risk-reduction strategies remain under-developed within training and research processes. It is for exactly this reason that this article draws upon Mary Douglas's notion of "social pollution" in order to understand the tensions and challenges of co-production. It seeks to expose the generally hidden politics of co-production.

Between 2017 and 2020 a comprehensive review of the framework of investigatory scrutiny committees in the House of Lords was undertaken. This process led to a far-reaching set of recommendations and reforms. Although carefully couched in the language of evolutionary change, this article argues that these reforms possess a transformational dynamic that is difficult to deny. The challenge, however, is likely to emerge from the existence of a largely hidden disjuncture between the accountability ambitions embedded within this reform agenda and the institutional, constitutional and political matrixes within which the 'new' committee system in the Lords is expected to operate. A three-dimensional lens emphasising inter-, intra-, and extra-institutional dimensions is utilised to expose and dissect the existence of potential disjuncture and, through this, offers a 'review of the review' informed by broader literatures on legislative organisation and policy analysis that will be of interest to both practitioners and scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How, when and why do policies change? This article engages with this question through a focus on the taxation of menstrual products in the United Kingdom from its initial emergence as an issue in 1996 through to the eventual abolition of the 'tampon tax' on 1 January 2021. Despite the significance of this topic for broader debates concerning gender inequality, political efficacy and social change it is not one that has been the focus of close historical analysis. The research presented in this article fills this gap in the existing research base and reveals (inter alia): (i) the ebb-and-flow of the issue-attention cycle; (ii) the grating of domestic pressures against international obligations; (iii) incremental policy change in an attempt to assuage campaigners; (iv) the co-option of 'period poverty' as a strategic and symbolic issue by Brexit campaigners; (v) and the eventual resolution of the issue a quarter of a century after it was first raised. As such the politics of policy change vis-à-vis the taxation of menstrual products in the United Kingdom fits within a number of broader debates concerning: how, when and why policies change; the complexities of multi-level governance; and interpretations of policy success and policy failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the vast seam of scholarship on parliamentary history the evolution and role of select committees in the house of lords, particularly in relation to investigatory or policy‐focused committees, has been almost completely overlooked. They have been 'institutions ignored'. This gap in the existing research base is particularly stark when compared with the very large literature on the history of select committees in the house of commons. This article fills this gap by providing the first detailed historical account of the evolution of investigatory or policy‐focused committees in the house of lords. This account reveals the evolution of a distinctive 'scrutiny style' moulded around the notion of complementarity, a highly specialised approach and an understanding of the merits of self‐restraint. However, during 2018–21 a fundamental review of the investigatory committee system was undertaken within the house of lords which led to significant change in relation to both the structure and ambition of committees. The impact of this reform agenda is likely to ensure that select committees in the Lords are far more visible in the future, within and beyond the Palace of Westminster, than they were in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why would a politician ever want to be blamed? Under what contextual conditions might blame-seeking behaviour emerge as a rational strategy? What tactics, tools and strategies might they deploy? Where is the empirical evidence of blame-seeking in action and why does it matter? These are the questions this article engages with as it challenges the long-standing ‘self-evident truth’ within political science that blame-is-bad. We argue that a new ‘blame game’ has emerged in which blame generation is deployed not solely to taint opponents but also to demonstrate the blame-seeker’s willingness to challenge convention, break the rules, or side with the marginalized. In a broader context characterized by democratic dissatisfaction, anti-political sentiment and affective polarization, we suggest that blame-seeking assumes a powerful symbolic and performative dimension. Antagonizing certain sections of society and then harnessing the backlash provides a powerful political strategy which challenges traditional scholarly assumptions about credit and blame existing in a zero-sum relationship. We illustrate these arguments using the case of Boris Johnson’s rise to the British premiership. A focus on blame-seeking, we suggest, expands our understanding of what politicians say and do to achieve their goals in polarized political contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2010.02120.x Byline: MATTHEW FLINDERS (1) Keywords: disengagement; depoliticisation; praise; depoliticisation; crises; Crick; Bernard (1929-2008) Abstract: In this, my inaugural lecture, I wanted to sing out in praise of politics! This seemed such a good idea twelve months ago, but now in the wake of even more stories about MPs not declaring foreign trips and former ministers demanding 'cash for access' the idea of trying to defend politicians and praise politics suddenly seems like a very bad idea. And yet it is exactly because politics is held in such low esteem that the lecture is so important. Democratic politics matters because it achieves far more than we generally give it credit for. I want to rediscover the essence and arguments of Bernard Crick's classic book In Defence of Politics because its arguments are more appropriate today than when they were first published in 1962. Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Parliamentary Government and Governance, University of Sheffield.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02063.x Byline: MATTHEW FLINDERS (1) Keywords: constitutional reform; democratic renewal; Blair-Brown; governance of Britain; crisis; MPs expenses Abstract: The MPs expenses scandal that erupted in May 2009 has certainly rekindled interest in the next stage of constitutional reform and democratic renewal in Britain. This article examines how Gordon Brown's tenure as Prime Minister has differed from Tony Blair's in relation to the 'new politics' narrative. It argues that despite his long-term personal commitment to major constitutional reforms, the role of crises in recalibrating the political opportunity structure and the manner in which electoral incentives can alter elite attitudes to institutional change that Brown's tenure can be characterised by optimism followed by timidity. Gordon Brown may have flown a few kites in relation to a written constitution, electoral reform, English devolution and the future of the House of Lords but he has left things far too late for a 'constitutional moment'. Brown may have the political inclination but he lacks the capacity to deliver far-reaching reform; Cameron is likely to have the capacity but not the inclination. Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Parliamentary Government and Governance, University of Sheffield.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01783.x Byline: MATTHEW FLINDERS (1) Abstract: This article focuses on the theories and methods that have been developed and deployed by scholars in order to understand both the cause and effect of delegation within state systems. It identifies three dominant traditions in the study of delegation, each of which reflects a certain disciplinary lineage as well as great variety in terms of ontological, epistemological and methodological positions. The aim of this article is not to make any normative claims about the innate superiority of any particular approach but to instead argue in favour of a pluralistic methodology which is sensitive to the layered quality of knowledge. By way of forging a sense of a shared enemy or weakness, the article concludes by arguing that all three traditions are united by their relative failure to study the logic of delegation and the power of ideas. In essence, each of the traditions has focused too heavily on what could be termed the politics of delegation (that is, the secondary consequences of delegation) and has, as a result, failed to focus attention on the politicization of delegation in terms of locating the basic logic of delegation back within the contours of public contestation. Author Affiliation: (1)Matthew Flinders is Professor of Parliamentary Government & Governance in the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. Article History: Date received 19 June 2008. Date accepted 22 December 2008.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.01983.x Byline: MATTHEW FLINDERS (1) Keywords: Conservative party; constitutional reform; democratic renewal; majoritarian modification; elite politics; political disengagement Abstract: In 2008 David Cameron declared that the Conservative party was 'ready for government' and suggested that 'the change we need is not just from Labour's old policies to our new policies- It's about a change from old politics to new politics'. This 'new politics' narrative is something of a cliche: British constitutional history reveals a regular pattern whereby opposition parties renege upon implementing far-reaching constitutional and democratic reforms once they win power. It is in this context that this article draws upon documentary analysis and a number of interviews to examine the Conservative party's position on constitutional reform and democratic renewal. It concludes that although the Conservative party has spent the last decade decrying the 'destruction' of the constitution it has undertaken little detailed preparatory work in relation to how it might seek to alter the governance of Britain. As a result the research presented in this article provides a number of insights into elite politics, strategic game-playing and executive veto capacities within a context of growing political disengagement from politics and falling levels of trust in politics. Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Parliamentary Government and Governance at the University of Sheffield.

This article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban's (2021) argument that the Westminster model is 'a concept stretched beyond repair' that deserves 'to be retired'. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument. We suggest their approach may have inadvertently 'muddied' an already muddled concept. We assess the implications of 'muddying' for their conclusion that the Westminster model is, in essence, a dead concept in need of a decent funeral. We suggest the concept is 'stretched but not snapped' by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens. This approach aids understanding about what the concept covers, how it is operationalized and why it remains useful in comparative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2008.02034.x Byline: MATTHEW FLINDERS (1) Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Parliamentary Government and Governance at the University of Sheffield.

The parliamentary decline thesis, which overstates the dominance of the executive, is examined with particular reference to Australia and New Zealand. The existence of a reforming parliament in UK during 2001-2005 in which an executive with a majority of 166 was forced to acquiesce in the introduction of a raft of reform measures in the House of Commons, UK, that were designed to shift the balance of power is suggested by drawing upon an audit of parliamentary modernization in Britain since the election of New Labor in 1997.

Arend Lijphart's work on patterns of democracy in order to provide an insight through which New Labor's constitutional reforms could be analyzed in terms of representing either a minor or major shift from a traditionally majoritarian to more consensus-oriented system is utilized. Even though the New Labor is committed to far-reaching constitutional reform in principle, it is far less committed in practice.

Governance theory raises conceptual and theoretical questions about the coordination of complex social systems and the evolving role of the state within that process. A central aspect of the governance debate focuses on the ability of national governments to address salient social issues. This article examines the British Labour governments' attempts to facilitate cross-departmental inter-organizational collaboration within Whitehall in an attempt to develop innovative responses to seemingly intractable social problems. The government's desire and strategy to increase its capacity to orchestrate `joined-up' government can be interpreted as both an acceptance and a response to the challenges of modern governance. The article locates the structural, procedural and cultural responses to this challenge within the theoretical and analytical framework of governance theory. It concludes by suggesting that meaningful change in the way public policy is designed and implemented may well demand a more deep seated reappraisal of the structure of Whitehall and the dominant values of the British political elite than is currently anticipated.

This article discusses the introductioon of freedom of information (FOI) legislation in the United Kingdom, which departs from the constitutional tradition because it readjusts the balance of power within the state. The author examines the process through which the bill became legislation and evaluates the political implications of it.

In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims. Drawing upon a survey of CEO's of agencies in seven countries, we explore whether and how conflictual accountability regimes relate to strategic behaviors by agency-CEO's and their political principals. The presence of conflictual accountability is experienced as a major challenge and is associated with important behavioral responses by those CEO's. This article demonstrates empirically how conflictual accountability is related to (a) controlling behaviors by principals, (b) constituency building behaviors by agencies, and (c) a general pattern of intensified contacts and information processing by both parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature on autonomous public agencies often adopts a top‐down approach, focusing on the means with which those agencies can be steered and controlled. This article opens up the black box of the agencies and zooms in on their CEO's and their perceptions of hierarchical accountability. The article focuses on felt accountability, denoting the manager's (a) expectation to have to explain substantive decisions to a parent department perceived to be (b) legitimate and (c) to have the expertise to evaluate those decisions. We explore felt accountability of agency‐CEO's and its institutional antecedents with a survey in seven countries combining insights from public administration and psychology. Our bottom‐up perspective reveals close connections between de facto control practices rather than formal institutional characteristics and felt accountability of CEO's of agencies. We contend that felt accountability is a crucial cog aligning accountability holders' expectations and behaviors by CEO's. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the relationship between crises and democracy through a focus on the unfolding coronavirus pandemic. Its central argument is that to interpret the current pandemic purely in terms of its epidemiology and public health implications risks overlooking its potentially more significant socio-political consequences. This is because the challenges posed by the coronavirus crisis have themselves become overlaid or layered-upon a pre-existing set of concerns regarding the performance, efficiency and capacity of democratic political structures. The aim of this article is to try and understand and warn against what might be termed a rather odd form of cross-contamination whereby the cynicism, negativity and frustration concerning politicians, political processes and political institutions that existed before the coronavirus outbreak is allowed to direct, define and automatically devalue how democratic structures are subsequently judged in terms of how they responded to the challenge. As such, this article focuses on the link between the Coronavirus crisis and the democratic crisis; or, more precisely, the risk that the Coronavirus crisis may mutate into and fuel a broader crisis of democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second argument is that politicians are well aware of the fact that crisis management is a risky affair and will therefore seek to utilise a number of blame-avoidance and self-preservation strategies. A second way in which Hood's framework helps focus attention on the pandemic-democracy link, in general, and blame, in particular, is through the identification of specific blame-avoidance strategies. Graph Going MAD We have already seen how previous pandemics have generally been viewed through the lens of policy failures which, in turn, explains why politicians engage in blame-avoidance behaviours. [Extracted from the article]

In recent years, the discipline of political science has been the focus of extensive criticism from observers based both within and beyond the academy. This is reflected in a sizable number of scholars who have called for the discipline to recognize its obligations to the public, and especially to supporting active citizenship, promoting democratic participation and addressing major social challenges. This emphasis on 'making political science matter' has also been stressed beyond the academy as funders, politicians and potential research-users place ever-greater emphasis on incentivizing and rewarding 'impact', 'relevance' and demonstrable 'public value'. The central argument of this article is that what has been missing from this debate is any sense of clarity around whether what is being demanded is greater engagement by political science as a discipline or greater engagement by political scientists as individuals. This raises distinctive questions about the moral foundations and professional ethics of political science which we explore not through a traditional focus on defending or sustaining liberal democracy but through a deeper and more subtle emphasis on the praxis of 'doing' political science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the singular importance of the work of national politicians in creating legislation, representing constituents and holding government to account, relatively little work has been done concerning their wellbeing and psychological health. There are unique, as well as universal, stressors that impact upon politicians; a neglect of these issues has profound consequences for those individuals and wider democracy. We propose a 'taxonomy of stressors' as a starting point for further inter-disciplinary and comparative research, and argue that it offers analytical leverage vis-à-vis a far broader set of debates concerning the future of representative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By failing to acknowledge the link between the design of our political institutions and growing levels of anti‐political sentiment, the restoration and renewal programme risks falling into a trap of its own making. Involving the public from the outset in an open review of the (re)design options for Westminster—in a positive and confident conversation—ensures the best opportunity for meaningful engagement between the public and the future of their democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the concept of 'meta-constitutional orientations' to understand the New Labour's bi-constitutionalism. The New Labour's consensual approach is discussed and evaluated.

The structure of the British state is growing increasingly complex. This trend raises a number of questions that focus on the forces stimulating this complexity and its implications both for society-state relationships and the design and implementation of public policy. This article focuses on one specific element or strand of these debates: the growth in the number and role of quasi-autonomous public bodies within Britain. It seeks to analyse and reflect upon the distinctive approach taken by the Labour government, since winning office in May 1997, in relation to the sphere of 'distributed public governance' in Britain. Moreover, the article seeks to locate this analysis within broader debates surrounding the future of the British state and the Labour government's approach to statecraft through a thematic framework based around: growth, co-ordination, accountability, depoliticization and power. The central argument of this article is that the Labour government has increased considerably the sphere of distributed public governance in Britain. This process has been largely devoid of an underpinning rationale and this may have significant implications for successful policy delivery, the public's trust in government and the future trajectory of the British state.

The rapid growth in the role, responsibilities and size of the British state has challenged constitutional processes of accountability, notably individual ministerial responsibility to Parliament, as many functions are delegated to organizations that enjoy a degree of autonomy from direct ministerial control. These bodies are playing a valuable role in the governance of Britain, most notably through the alleviation of ministerial overload.

Two separate, but inter-linked, dilemmas have highlighted the importance of design-led thinking. First, the crumbling physical fabric of the Palace of Westminster has prompted a multi-billion rebuilding project, which will require the parliamentary studies specialism to engage with questions of design, space, and architecture. Separately, political science more generally has been challenged to utilize the insights of design-thinking and design-practice: a challenge to which it is culturally and methodological ill-equipped. This article considers what a design-led approach to political science looks like in theory, and in practice, in the case study of the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster. This represents a first attempt at how such a fusion could be beneficial for both politics as theory and politics as practice. The main conclusion is that although design-orientated political science is not a panacea for the challenges of modern democratic governance – in intellectual or practical terms – it does appear to offer significant potential in terms of theoretically-informed but solution focused research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]