DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy: the Missing Link in the Devolution Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy: the Missing Link in the Devolution Debate Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate Devolution in England could change the way we are governed and create a fairer dispersion of power, with more opportunities for people outside of Westminster to have a say. An overriding focus on economic growth currently threatens to de-rail devolution by encouraging local governments to promise economic outcomes they could struggle to deliver, outcomes which are not necessarily in the residents’ best interests. Presently the debate on devolution neglects the • Environmental sustainability is part of just democratic transformations that could make 0.8% of arguments. devolution worthwhile. In this research, we map arguments in favour of devolution produced by • Only 2.9% of arguments address the central government, local government, think- potential downsides and risks of devolution. tanks, and civil society groups between 2011 and 2015. • Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes Key findings less than central government or think-tanks. • Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving Introduction power. Decentralising power from Westminster to • Only 12.9% of arguments make the case regions is a debate with a long history, one in for devolution in order to shift power, which numerous governments have engaged, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen offering various regional power structures involvement in decision-making. for the devolution of government functions and decisions – not least in Scotland, Wales, • Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities and Northern Ireland. Following the 2014 in wealth and power between regions. Scottish independence referendum and the 2 Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate 2015 UK general election result, discussions Methods of devolution now have a renewed sense We mapped arguments in favour of devolution of urgency. Momentum is growing behind produced by central government, local local authorities joining to create combined government, think-tanks, and civil society authorities and negotiating with Whitehall over groups using a sample of documents covering the devolution of powers in health, housing, the period December 2011 to June 2015.3 We planning, enterprise, employment, skills, and coded documents for the outcomes referenced transport. New agreements for devolution are in each argument, covering economic, social, being announced on a regular basis. The Cities environmental, and democratic dimensions. and Local Government Devolution Bill, which We also coded for arguments which address provides a legislative underpinning for making potential downsides and risks of devolution devolution agreements, is passing through including failures of local leadership, parliament. exacerbation of inter-regional inequalities, Voices in the debate are overwhelmingly and increases in bureaucracy and central positive about the prospect of devolution, government control over local governments. The which is seen as a ray of light in a decade codes were initially developed on the basis of of government spending cuts and political a literature review of academic research, and malaise, but the devolution agreements are not subsequently extended as themes emerged always as comprehensive as local government during coding. advocates hope.1 Nor are they clear about Following coding, we analysed the arguments the social, environmental, and democratic and evaluated the scope and content of the outcomes which devolution could achieve outcomes discussed, applying learning from – tending to focus on important but limited NEF’s work on community development and economic outputs such as the creation of indicators of economic success, and the Crick growth hubs and the development of transport Centre’s work on democracy and participation, networks. as well as other relevant academic research. In order for policy to be successful, In this briefing we outline the shape of the policymakers must be clear about the devolution debate and highlight gaps in the outcomes, or in other words the change, they sorts of outcomes considered. In particular we aim to achieve. New Economics Foundation demonstrate that democratic outcomes are often (NEF) has demonstrated in our work with local sidelined in favour of narrow economic outcomes and national government, that outcomes are which have not usually been discussed with best defined in partnership with the people local people. This leads to a critique of the way to whom they are most relevant – the citizen, in which devolution policy is being progressed, the end user, or the local stakeholder.2 In its and to recommend ways to open up the debate current form, the devolution debate is not to greater participation. creating space for a robust discussion of outcomes or for citizens to have a say. With the Growth is discussed most aim of supporting a more outcomes-focused and participatory approach to devolution, Figure 1 shows how the devolution debate NEF worked with the Crick Centre at the breaks down, in terms of the arguments used University of Sheffield to map the outcomes and the aims discussed. The most common being discussed in the devolution debate. We argument for devolution is that it will achieve aim to show which outcomes are prioritised, greater economic growth, creating cities that will to highlight gaps in the debate, and to make stimulate regional growth that contributes to the it possible for citizen stakeholders – locally national purse. On average, this argument makes and nationally – to have a stronger voice in up 41.6% of arguments made in documents promoting the outcomes that matter to them. proposing devolution. 3 Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate Figure 1. Prominence of outcomes in the devolution debate 45 41.6% 40 35 30 25 23.7% 20 15 12.9% 10 7.4% 6.1% 4.6% 5 2.9% Average % of arguments per document arguments per % of Average 0.8% 0 Environment Downsides Identity Economic Inter-regional Democracy Effectiveness Economic and risks efficiency equality growth After growth, the second most prominent Democracy is neglected argument is that devolution will improve the Creating a more democratic country by effectiveness of public service delivery by reducing the extent to which power is retained increasing the pace with which services can at Westminster and by increasing the share of respond to local needs, supporting investment in power exercised by voters, especially in England, housing and transport, and reducing duplication is an outcome backed up by the results of in local government activities. This makes up surveys displaying dissatisfaction with the way 23.7% of arguments. England is currently governed through UK- Discussion of other potential aims of devolution wide institutions in Whitehall and Westminster. is much more limited. Making the UK a more In 2014, the Future of England Survey asked a sample of 3,705 adults in England for their democratic country is discussed in a much views on the governance of England and found smaller 12.9% of arguments and addressing that, no matter how the question was phrased, inequalities in wealth and power between the status quo attracted support from no more regions in only 7.4% of arguments. Despite the than a quarter of those surveyed.4 All options potential for devolving elements of environmental for changing governance – from a government and energy policy, outcomes relating to minister for each region to an English parliament environmental sustainability are addressed in just – attracted majority support, but without an 0.8% of arguments. Groups writing in support obvious winner. The Chancellor appealed to of devolution seldom consider the potential this sentiment when he called the Greater downsides and the risks of devolution, focusing Manchester devolution agreement ‘a revolution on its potential advantages and giving hardly in the way we govern England’.5 any attention to the inhibiting impact of austerity cuts on what could be achieved, or the risk The aim of improving democracy is highly that devolution agreements could paradoxically relevant to devolution and yet is not given increase central government’s control over local much attention, being discussed on average governments. Discussion of downsides and risks in 1 of every 10 arguments (12.9%), compared make up only 2.9% of arguments. to 4 in 10 for economic growth (41.6%). 4 Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate When documents do discuss the potential of As this quote typifies: devolution to reinvigorate democracy, the focus is on three main ideas: “ A vote for directly-elected mayors would help reanimate English democracy by opening up • It will increase the scope for decision-making important new sites of power that are more in by locally elected leaders who are physically tune with local communities.” 8 ‘closer to home’ 6 than MPs. The missing link is the cultivation of citizen • Hence, it will make it easier for the electorate participation and the development of structures to ‘identify, find, interrogate and hold to and mechanisms for doing so, without which 7 account those elected to govern them’. levels of accountability and alienation could be no better than before, for two reasons. First, • This will address discontent and alienation, citizens have to wait until the next mayoral reviving voter turnout and political trust. election to make their voices heard just as they These are promising
Load more

Recommended publications
  • College Historical Society
    COLLEGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY LAWS OF THE SOCIETY Chapter I Fundamental Regulations The following shall be considered the fundamental regulations of the College Historical Society and no Law or resolution in anywise contradicting, suspending or repealing them, or any part of them, shall be valid without the consent of the Board. 1. All persons paying the capital levy shall be eligible for the ordinary Membership of the Society. 2. Topics of religious controversy and present party politics shall be prohibited at the meetings of the Society. 3. Every meeting of the Society shall terminate not later than twelve o’clock by College time. 4. No person can be elected an Officer of the Historical Society without the sanction of the Board unless he be either officially connected with the University or be a member of the Society. This law shall not apply to the election of Vice-Presidents. Chapter II Annual Members 1. The amount of the annual subscription shall be determined by the General Committee in advance of the first of October of each session. 2. All persons who are eligible shall become Annual Members immediately upon paying their annual subscription. 3. The membership of every Annual Member shall lapse at the end of the sixth week of Michaelmas Term in the session following that in which his annual subscription was last paid. Every person whose membership shall have so lapsed shall be re-admissible on payment of the annual subscription. 4. Any member who is neither indebted to the Society in any amount, nor has in his possession any book from the Society’s Library, nor has any key belonging to the Society may resign from membership of the Society on notifying in writing the Record Secretary of his wish to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Academy Guide
    Debate Academy Guide 29 July to 3 August 2019, Uppingham School Introduction from the Course Director Debate Academy is an annual, week-long summer school in the United Kingdom dedicated to improving young people’s debating skills. It is held each year in late July to early August at Uppingham School in Rutland. Students aged 14-18 receive tuition from expert debating mentors in a variety of competitive debating formats. Whether you have little or no experience, or are getting ready for trials for your national debating team, Debate Academy will offer a tailored experience to suit you. This document is designed to provide additional information and hopefully to answer any questions you may have about Debate Academy. For the most up to date information on this year’s Debate Academy or to sign up for a place, please visit our website: http://www.esu.org/programmes/debate-academy If you have any further questions or queries about Debate Academy feel free to get in touch with me at [email protected]. I look forward to seeing you there! Bob Saull Debating Programmes Officer English-Speaking Union 1 Contents Learning at Debate Academy 3 Which ‘Track’ is for Me? 4 Which ‘Stream’ is for Me? 5 Living at Debate Academy 6 Applying to Debate Academy 9 2 Learning at Debate Academy At Debate Academy you will receive expert tuition on debating from some of the best debaters in the country. You will get the chance to discuss world issues, sharpen your analytical, reasoning and public speaking skills, and spar with other students from all over the world in competitive debates.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 Newsletter
    2018-2019 Newsletter The YDA by the Numbers: Another Outstanding Year The Yale Debate Association continued to dominate both at 1 home and abroad this year. The The YDA’s US team snagged its tenth consecutive Ranking Club of the Year Award and broke three teams and five judges at the World Universities Debating Championships among a long list 10 of its other stellar accomplishments Years in a Row from this year. as Top US Team The team excelled once more at APDA Nationals, with one team reaching semifinals, and one team reaching quarterfinals. By stay- ing on top of the ranks throughout the season, Yale also keep its COTY status for the tenth year in a row, leading second place team 8 Harvard by over 40 points. Tournaments Won Yale also performed strongly at WUDC. Three of five teams broke to elimination rounds, with Yale B reaching quarterfinals, and Yale A and Yale C both reaching double-octafinals. All five Yale-affiliat- 5 ed judges also judge broke. Top Speaker Awards The YDA had another oustanding year, and is looking forward to the next! Excellence at APDA Nationals The YDA had another incredible year at APDA Nationals. Eleven 11 team members qualified, and five Debaters teams competed at Nationals, Qualified to including two novices. Yale's Nationals competitors performed very well. Three debaters earned top twenty speaker awards: Will Arnesen ('20), also 10th Speaker of the Year, was 2nd speaker, Ellie Singer ('21) was 6th speaker, and Jack Kelly ('21) was 16th speaker. Two teams also broke to elimination rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Marking 200 Years of Legal Education: Traditions of Change, Reasoned Debate, and Finding Differences and Commonalities
    MARKING 200 YEARS OF LEGAL EDUCATION: TRADITIONS OF CHANGE, REASONED DEBATE, AND FINDING DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES Martha Minow∗ What is the significance of legal education? “Plato tells us that, of all kinds of knowledge, the knowledge of good laws may do most for the learner. A deep study of the science of law, he adds, may do more than all other writing to give soundness to our judgment and stability to the state.”1 So explained Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School in 1923,2 and his words resonate nearly a century later. But missing are three other possibilities regarding the value of legal education: To assess, critique, and improve laws and legal institutions; To train those who pursue careers based on legal training, which may mean work as lawyers and judges; leaders of businesses, civic institutions, and political bodies; legal academics; or entre- preneurs, writers, and social critics; and To advance the practice in and study of reasoned arguments used to express and resolve disputes, to identify commonalities and dif- ferences, to build institutions of governance within and between communities, and to model alternatives to violence in the inevi- table differences that people, groups, and nations see and feel with one another. The bicentennial of Harvard Law School prompts this brief explo- ration of the past, present, and future of legal education and scholarship, with what I hope readers will not begrudge is a special focus on one particular law school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence; until July 1, 2017, Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor, Harvard Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Scrutinised Long Manifestos - Tt20 (2Nd Election)
    SCRUTINISED LONG MANIFESTOS - TT20 (2ND ELECTION) CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT Amy Gregg (Ex-Treasurer, Exeter College ) - Candidate for President-Elect - Long Manifesto The Union has had significant setbacks in the last few years. I did not intend to run this term, but it is clear that the Union needs a President who has the experience and the capability to set it back on the right course. The Union can do so much better, and the Union must do so much better. As an undergraduate, I was President of the Cambridge Union. During this time I ran a record-setting membership drive, managed a £100,000 budget, and hosted over thirty speakers including Stephen Fry, Quentin Blake and Moazzam Begg. After leaving Cambridge I was a trainee solicitor at a Magic Circle Law firm, and I now hold an offer for a pupillage to be a barrister. I have real world experience which I can use to improve our Union as well. I previously served on committee for 7 terms. In this time I arranged 5 debates, including confirming 5/6 speakers for the Comedy debate. I ran Debates, Panels and Speaker events, confirmed multiple speakers and chaired the Union’s largest committee. I also spent over 50 days of vacation working for the Union and made 3 winning paper speeches. As Treasurer I secured 29 debate Floor Prizes, 12 New Treasurer’s Treats and coordinated sponsorship from a major Scholarship fund - ensuring transparency by publishing the audited accounts on the app. This demonstrates that I have the ability to run the Union, but it also made me realise: the Union needs real change - change only an experienced President can bring.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society
    The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society THE LAWS 0) Definitions 1) The Laws and Rules The Structure of The Cambridge Union 2) Membership 3) The Standing Committee 4) Officers 5) The Responsibilities of the Officers 6) The Review Committee Elections and Appointments 7) Elections Procedure 8) Charitable Points for Elections 9) Electoral Rules 10) Electoral Investigations 11) Appointments Procedure Codes and Policies 12) Code of Conduct 13) Code of Conduct Investigation 14) Principles of the Union 15) Restrictions on Invitations 16) Expenses Policy 17) Procedure for Main Debates 18) Policy on Reciprocal Membership Page 1 of 67 THE RULES Events Policies 1) Duty Officer 2) House Rules 3) Guest Policy Competitive Debating 4) Debating Team Selection and Reimbursement 5) Management of Debating Budget 6) Convenors 7) Convenors Positions and Responsibilities Organisational Committees 8) Full Committee 9) Full Committee Departments and Responsibilities 10) Sub-Committees 11) Budget Committee 12) Competitive Debating Committee 13) Vacation Committee 14) Executive Committee Miscellaneous 15) Handover 16) Social Events Planning Procedure Page 2 of 67 Definitions THE LAWS Definitions In these Laws and Rules the following expressions have the following means unless inconsistent with the context: 1) Accounts Manager means the individual hired by the Society to run its accounts. 2) Appeals Panel means the panel appointed in accordance with Law 13 which handles disciplinary appeals. 3) Appellant means a member of the Society who is seeking an appeal to a disciplinary decision. 4) Appointee means a member of the Society appointed to a formal position. 5) Board of Trustee-Directors means the group of individual trustee directors who have ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of the charity from time to time in accordance with the Charities Act 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Resilience Debating Resource Pack for Primary Schools Contents
    community resilience debating resource pack for primary schools contents getting started what is debating? 4 game: if I ruled the world... 4 game: just a minute 4 planning your debates 5 looking at resilience group activity: how resilient is your community? 6 individual activity: how resilient are you? 8 people who help us debate format and planning 10 handout: people who help us debate 12 debate role cards 13 preparing the debate 14 handout: r.e.a.l. arguments & speech structure 15 debating techniques 16 speech plan & fish speech plan 18 summary speech plan 20 audience task 21 resilience role-plays role-play debate format 22 designing your own role-play 23 tourism impact role-play 24 local bypass role-play 26 handout: finding things out 28 handout: being persuasive 29 judging debates judging a debate 30 helping first time speakers 31 debating resilience and cfe literacy and english 32 social studies, health and wellbeing, expressive arts 33 welcome... ...to this Community Resilience Primary School Debating Resource, which has been developed by the English-Speaking Union Scotland for Education Scotland as part of their Community Resilience project. Community Resilience is a very broad topic and each community will face its own challenges. However, there are common threads: challenging situations and adversity; problem solving; being prepared; mitigating impact; overcoming a personal or community challenge or obstacle; and adapting and building resilience. In all of these situations it’s about communitities coming together to provide mutual support and build resilience. Debating is a great way of encouraging this process and there are many ways that the whole class can be involved in debating, building on the strengths of each individual pupil who will contribute to the activity in different ways, developing confidence and skills that will be useful to themselves and their communities throughout their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Debate Association
    THE YALE DEBATE ASSOCIATION 2015-2016 Newsletter The YDA by the Yale Continues Reign as Top School on APDA Numbers: After a season that saw a hard fought race for APDA’s Club of the Year title, Yale runs to finals at the 1 United States Universities YDA’s US Rank- Debating Championships, ing begets a fantastic perfor- mance at the World Champi- onships, and finishes another successful year at the top of the list of the best debate teams in the country. In addition to its in- 7 Individual members of the YDA Years in a Row ternationally recognized success, the YDA were also greatly successful throughout continued its run of unprecedented do- as top US Team the year. Yale LZ, consisting of Diana Li mestic dominance. Breaking its own rec- and Henry Zhang, were APDA’s Team of ord for total points, Yale won APDA’s the Year (“TOTY”), winning back the coveted COTY award of the 2014-2015 award with 88 points. Additionally, most season, for the seventh year running, ac- of the best speakers at the 2015 National cumulating 66 more points than the sec- championships were from Yale. The 2016 ond ranked school, Brandeis. North American Championships also saw 11 As part of a record breaking year, Edwin Zhang and Tony Nguyen become Tournaments not only did Yale win its seventh consecu- finalists. Won tive COTY award from the American Par- Unsurprisingly, the YDA contin- liamentary Debate Association (“APDA”), ues to prove itself as the best team in the it is continuing the 2016 season as first United States this year, and the ranking place with 433 points, more than 160 also reflects an excellent class of new nov- points higher than the current second ices and the dedication and involvement place, with Brown University holding 286 of the YDA's members to every aspect of points.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Debate Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale Invitational Tournament
    Yale Debate Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale Invitational Tournament October 2020 Dear Speech and Debate Coach: TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS On behalf of the Yale Debate Association, Alan Joaquin George we invite you and your team to the Zhengdong Wang Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale University 2020 EXECUTIVE BOARD Invitational Tournament from Friday, Ellie Singer October 2nd, 2020 to Sunday, October 4, President 2020. The tournament will consist of competition in Varsity and JV Lincoln Alex Gordon Douglas Debate, Varsity and JV Policy Tournaments Coordinator Debate, Varsity and JV Public Forum Jack Kelly Debate, an open division in Congressional Membership Director Debate, an open division in Parliamentary Debate, and eight Speech events (DEC, DI, Ko Lyn Cheang EX, HI, INF, OI, POI, and OO). Treasurer Trent Kannegieter This year, due to the ongoing COVID-19 Development Director pandemic, we have decided it is in the best interest of the health of those who attend our tournament for the Yale Invitational to be a virtual tournament. Although we are The Yale Debate Association (YDA) is an undergraduate organization of Yale University in disappointed that we will not be able to New Haven, CT. Every year, the YDA travels welcome you to our beautiful campus this throughout the United States and the world to fall, we are encouraged by the success of compete in Parliamentary Debate. online tournaments that have been held so far, and are confident in our ability to offer a To encourage speech and debate activities among high school and college students, the YDA hosts top-notch competitive experience and a safe several tournaments each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle School Public Debate Program Debating in the MSPDP Format © 2002 John Meany and Kate Shuster
    Middle School Public Debate Program Debating in the MSPDP Format © 2002 John Meany and Kate Shuster Introduction There are as many different ways to debate as there are topics to debate. This handout concentrates on one basic style of debating, known as the parliamentary debate style. Parliamentary debate is the most popular and fastest growing form of debating in the world. As you learn to debate in the parliamentary format, you will join a global community of thinkers and competitors with who you may engage in argument and public speaking. There are many kinds of debate that go under the name “parliamentary debate.” The purpose of this reading is to introduce you to the basic rules of the six-person format for parliamentary debate. One of the best features of parliamentary debate is that there are very few official rules. The format is easy to learn and difficult to master. There are four basic categories of rules: • Number of teams and debaters • Order of speeches • Limits on speaking time • Decision making procedure In parliamentary debate, one side makes a case for the proposition, while the other side opposes the proposition team. For this reason, we call one side the proposition side and the other side the opposition side. The proposition team always opens the debate by delivering the first speech. Remember that the debate is centered on the proposition for debate; thus, it makes sense that the proposition team starts the debate by defending adoption of the proposition. Six-Person Debating A parliamentary debate is a contest between two groups of debaters, where one group is on each side of a debate topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Atonement, Scapegoats, and the Oxford Debating Society Joe A
    The Kentucky Review Volume 5 | Number 2 Article 3 Winter 1984 Atonement, Scapegoats, and the Oxford Debating Society Joe A. Thompson University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kentucky-review Part of the European History Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Thompson, Joe A. (1984) "Atonement, Scapegoats, and the Oxford Debating Society," The Kentucky Review: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kentucky-review/vol5/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Kentucky Libraries at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Kentucky Review by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. es. Atonement, Scapegoats, and the Oxford Debating Society :er Joe A. Thompson m e es .e "0xford Atones" read a newspaper headline after the Oxford Union Society defeated by 416 votes to 187 the motion "That this House would not fight for Queen and Country" on 9 February 1983, exactly fifty years after the union had carried by 275 votes to 153 the resolution "That this House will in no circumstances fight r for its King and Country." Most commentators welcomed the "atonement" of Oxford, where, as John Gray wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "intellectual trends are first revealed." The second y Oxford debate was therefore "encouraging and even inspiring. It showed signs that many of history's hard lessons had been learned." 1 But for what was Oxford belatedly atoning? Why did undergraduate debates receive so much attention? And what were .s the "hard lessons" of history to be learned from the Oxford episode? For Max Beloff, the celebrated political writer and academician, the second debate was occasion for personal atonement.
    [Show full text]