DOCSLIB.ORG

A Vision for a Good Scottish Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Vision for a Good Scottish Democracy DEMOCRACY MAAN INQUIRY INTO THE FUTURE OF SCOTTISH DEMOCRACY A VISION FOR A GOOD SCOTTISH DEMOCRACY Electoral Reform Society Scotland 12 South Charlotte Street Edinburgh EH2 4AX T: 0131 624 9853 E: [email protected] W: www.electoral-reform.org.uk/scotland August 2013 POLITICS IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO POLITICIANS DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy CONTENTS FOREWORD BY JAMES ROBERTSON 3 INTRODUCTION 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9 DEMOCRACY MAX – A SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 11 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE 15 PEOPLE’S GATHERING FINDINGS 16 ROUNDTABLE REPORT 22 DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY 55 PEOPLE’S GATHERING FINDINGS 56 ROUNDTABLE REPORT 60 HOW DO WE WRITE THE RULES 99 PEOPLE’S GATHERING FINDINGS 100 ROUNDTABLE REPORT 105 NEXT STEPS 131 APPENDIX 132 REFERENCES 135 3 FOREWORD BY JAMES ROBERTSON DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy he referendum on political parties, which is why I independence in September welcome the Electoral Reform T2014 offers a chance to Society Scotland’s facilitation of the imagine what kind of Scotland we Democracy Max debates. Democracy want to live in. Whatever the Max starts from the premise that outcome of that referendum – sovereignty lies with the people, and whether Scotland continues as a part that key elements of our society, of the United Kingdom or becomes, such as the education, health, social once again, an independent country security and justice systems, should – in many ways the result will not be function in the best interests of the a conclusion, any more than the 1997 people. For that to happen, our referendum vote for devolution was a political system must be both conclusion. It will be an opportunity, efficient and democratic, able to a beginning. deliver results yet open and accountable. This applies at both Arguably, the independence debate local and national levels. isn’t really about independence. It’s about what independence might be The people of Scotland, whether they for. If we take this view, then the vote for independence or to remain same applies to continuing with in the Union, deserve a better existing constitutional arrangements. political system than one in which What are they for? In either post- politicians and civil servants are referendum scenario, further perceived to live in a different world questions arise: how well does our from that inhabited by ordinary political system work, and what can people. The Democracy Max series be done to make it work better? What shows that there are many values do we want to underpin our imaginative ways that a healthier, society, and how can we ensure that more effective and more accountable they are built into political and civic politics can be grown, to enable structures that include, rather than Scotland to become a better country. exclude, the mass of the population? James Robertson This debate is too important to be August 2013 left in the sole possession of the 5 INTRODUCTION DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy he 2012 Hansard Audit of in a changing world and begin to Political Engagement1 stated: describe what a good Scottish T‘Voters are disgruntled, democracy should look like. disillusioned and disengaged’. After countless scandals, crises and To deepen our understanding inquiries, is it any wonder that and inform our position on the people think politics isn’t working for constitutional debate and what them. At the Electoral Reform concerns people about our Society (ERS) Scotland, we believe political systems, with a view to that the Scottish independence future campaigning. referendum debate is an opportunity to challenge our political system to To help shape the language of change, to confound the low the debate around the expectations voters have of politics, referendum to ensure the idea of and to deliver on the high hopes they what kind of democracy we want still hold for democracy in Scotland. to live in is part and parcel of the debate. Democracy Max is an independent inquiry initiated by ERS Scotland The first conversation: into ‘What makes a good Scottish The People’s Gathering democracy’. In contrast to much of the current debate around To begin the inquiry, ERS Scotland Scotland’s constitutional future organised a deliberative discussion being led by political parties, event which brought together as Democracy Max provided a non- representative a sample as possible partisan space where those with of Scottish people.2 The People’s different views could debate and Gathering saw over 80 delegates discuss ideas and where political come together in Edinburgh to rhetoric could be challenged and engage in radical thinking about unpicked, with the aim of achieving Scotland’s democracy. They were the following objectives: asked to imagine: To debate, in a non-partisan It's 2030, and Scotland is admired space, the nature of democracy as a shining example of democracy 7 and democratic participation. about how the ideas proposed by the What three aspects of this future People’s Gathering might be society please you most? achieved in a future Scotland, and what that future Scotland might look In the morning they discussed their like. aspirations for Scotland’s democratic future and in the The findings from the People’s afternoon, they thought about how Gathering are organised into three we might achieve those things, or broad themes: what was preventing them from happening. Sovereignty of the People – How do we return more power to The findings from the the people? People’s Gathering Defending our democracy – The ideas that came out of the How do we stop vested interests People's Gathering were published in having too much influence? the first report of the series: ‘Politics is too important to be left to How do we write the rules – politicians’.3 They then formed the How do we get the checks and basis of three phases of roundtable balances our democracy needs? conversations which sought to distil those ideas into a ‘Vision for a Good The Democracy Max Scottish Democracy'. A vision roundtables informed by people not politicians. The roundtable sessions based The process involved difficult around these themes were held discussions about the feasibility of between October 2012 and June the ideas, about why some of the 2013. Academics and experts, ideals shared have not yet been commentators and opinion formers, implemented, and about the forces campaigners and community that prevent change. It also activists, writers and representatives presented a challenge to our of Scottish civic society and other roundtable participants to think citizens (but no politicians), were DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy invited to contribute their thoughts, publication; a ‘Vision for a Good expertise and opinions. There were Scottish Democracy’. This merges two sessions on each theme, with the interim publications to reflect the participants invited to attend either process of Democracy Max as it or both discussions. progressed over time. Each roundtable fed into the next, We have organised the findings into allowing learning to travel through three chapters, reflecting the broad the whole process and for areas of themes from the findings of the overlap between the phases to be People’s Gathering. Each chapter is considered, but also providing for prefaced by a summary of the ideas fresh thinking and different and comments from our People’s perspectives and expertise to be Gathering delegates, and some of applied. Inevitably the roundtable their aspirations for Scottish discussions were wide-ranging and democracy in 2030. did not always correspond precisely to the division of topics from the We intend to use this publication to People’s Gathering. We are confident develop future ERS campaigns and nonetheless that all of the ideas to work with individuals and civic from the People’s Gathering have society organisations to challenge been given careful consideration. We our elected representatives to tell us hope our delegates from that first what they might do to help lead us all-day session agree. towards this vision of a good Scottish democracy. In order to take the ideas from the roundtable back to the public, each roundtable reported to a public event at which attendees were invited to discuss the conclusions in a deliberative and participative format. There were interim publications after each phase, which are gathered together in this final 9 ACKNOWLEDGE- MENTS4 DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy his project is motivated by the of their time and expertise; they are simple belief that politics is too numerous to list here but Tjust too important to be left to without them none of this work politicians. We would like to take this would have been possible. opportunity to thank all of the people who made this process Thank you all. possible. From the outset the process has been guided by the Public Policy Network at the University of Edinburgh. They advised on the deliberative democracy format of the People’s Gathering and the public events after each roundtable. The Public Policy Network was also kind enough to host the first set of roundtables. We are also indebted to the Scottish Political Archive at the University of Stirling who hosted and supported the second set of roundtables. Our thanks are also due to the chairs of the three roundtables, Esther Roberton, Rob Edwards and Shelagh McKinlay. Finally, we are incredibly grateful to all the participants in the Democracy Max process. Hundreds of people have willingly and generously given 11 DEMOCRACY MAX – A SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS DEMOCRACY MAX A vision for a good Scottish democracy DIRECTOR'S INTRODUCTION his publication is a collection inability of unreformed majoritarian of four separate reports that and representative systems of Tcapture the rich democracy to answer the demands conversations, questions, ideas and of popular uprisings around the suggestions that have emerged from world – means that ’how to govern’ the Electoral Reform Society’s is a highly topical question.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Party Funding: Controversies and Reform Since 1997
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 07152, 24 March 2016 Political party funding: By Elise Uberoi controversies and reform since 1997 Inside: 1. Introduction 2. Why is party funding contentious? 3. The situation before 1997 4. Party funding: 1997-2010 5. Party funding: 2010-2015 6. Party funding in the 2015 Parliament 7. What next for party funding reform? www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 07152, 24 March 2016 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Why is party funding contentious? 6 2.1 The need for party funding 6 2.2 Public funding 6 2.3 Private funding 6 2.4 Party funding statistics 7 3. The situation before 1997 9 3.1 Public funding 9 3.2 Private funding 9 4. Party funding: 1997-2010 10 4.1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life (1998) and PPERA (2000) 10 4.2 The Electoral Commission review (2004) 11 4.3 ‘Cash for honours’ (2006) and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 11 4.4 Inquiries: Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (2006) and Phillips (2007) 12 The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (CASC) 12 Sir Hayden Phillips 12 4.5 The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 13 5. Party funding: 2010-2015 15 5.1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life (2011) 15 5.2 The Electoral Commission review (2013) 16 5.3 The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and other developments 16 Draft Bill 17 Labour Party reform 17 5.4 Allegations and scandals reported by the press 17 5.5 The 2015 General Election 18 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Friend Or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy
    Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy A discussion paper by Philip Parvin Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2007 Published by the Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the author. The Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. ISBN 978 0 900432 63 2 Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons Printed and bound in Great Britain by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Contents Page Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Who are the lobbyists? 9 Chapter 2: Perceptions of the Lobbying Community 22 Chapter 3: Lobbying and Democracy 31 Appendix: Research Methodology 35 1 Acknowledgements The Hansard Society is grateful to Ellwood and Atfield who have made this project possible. In particular, Ben Atfield and Gavin Ellwood have supported this discussion paper from the outset, contributed ideas to the thinking and been generous with their enthusiasm and commitment.
    [Show full text]
  • Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Countries
    POWER, COMMUNICATION, AND POLITICS IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES POWER, COMMUNICATION, POWER, COMMUNICATION, AND POLITICS IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES The Nordic countries are stable democracies with solid infrastructures for political dia- logue and negotiations. However, both the “Nordic model” and Nordic media systems are under pressure as the conditions for political communication change – not least due to weakened political parties and the widespread use of digital communication media. In this anthology, the similarities and differences in political communication across the Nordic countries are studied. Traditional corporatist mechanisms in the Nordic countries are increasingly challenged by professionals, such as lobbyists, a development that has consequences for the processes and forms of political communication. Populist polit- ical parties have increased their media presence and political influence, whereas the news media have lost readers, viewers, listeners, and advertisers. These developments influence societal power relations and restructure the ways in which political actors • Edited by: Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, & Lars Nord • Edited by: Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard communicate about political issues. This book is a key reference for all who are interested in current trends and develop- ments in the Nordic countries. The editors, Eli Skogerbø, Øyvind Ihlen, Nete Nørgaard Kristensen, and Lars Nord, have published extensively on political communication, and the authors are all scholars based in the Nordic countries with specialist knowledge in their fields. Power, Communication, and Politics in the Nordic Nordicom is a centre for Nordic media research at the University of Gothenburg, Nordicomsupported is a bycentre the Nordic for CouncilNordic of mediaMinisters. research at the University of Gothenburg, supported by the Nordic Council of Ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • On Parliamentary Representation)
    House of Commons Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Session 2008–09 Volume II Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 April 2009 HC 167 -II Published on 27 May 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) The Conference secretariat will be able to make individual submissions available in large print or Braille on request. The Conference secretariat can be contacted on 020 7219 0654 or [email protected] On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish a new committee, to be chaired by the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Michael Martin MP and known as the Speaker's Conference. The Conference has been asked to: "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large". It may also agree to consider other associated matters. The Speaker's Conference has until the end of the Parliament to conduct its inquiries. Current membership Miss Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Vice-Chairman) Ms Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North & Stoke Newington) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Mr David Blunkett MP (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton & Honiton) Mr Ronnie Campbell MP (Labour, Blyth Valley) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) Mr Parmjit Dhanda MP (Labour, Gloucester) Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, St Ives) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist, South Antrim) David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith & The Border) Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) Mr Khalid Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham Perry Barr) Anne Main MP (Conservative, St Albans) Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire) Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour, Conwy) Publications The Reports and evidence of the Conference are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on Community Engagement, Empowerment and Social Action in a Changing Policy Context
    Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 51 Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on community engagement, empowerment and social action in a changing policy context Angus McCabe December 2010 Working Paper Paper Working 51 December 2010 December Contents Introduction: defining ‘below the radar’ groups and activities ........................................................ 3 ‘Big Society’ as policy: continuity and divergence ........................................................................... 4 The language of ‘Big Society’ .............................................................................................................. 6 The impact of ‘Big Society’ .................................................................................................................. 8 ‘Below the radar’: community engagement, empowerment and social action: critical issues .................................................................................................................. 9 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Next steps ............................................................................................................................................ 15 End notes ............................................................................................................................................. 15 References ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Friend Or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy
    Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy A discussion paper by Philip Parvin Friend or Foe? Lobbying in British Democracy Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2007 Published by the Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the author. The Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. ISBN 978 0 900432 63 2 Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons Printed and bound in Great Britain by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Contents Page Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Who are the Lobbyists? 9 Chapter 2: Perceptions of the Lobbying Industry 22 Chapter 3: Lobbying and British Democracy 31 Appendix: Research Methodology 35 1 Acknowledgements Dr Philip Parvin was Director of the Hansard Society’s Study and Scholars Programme until 2006. He currently teaches politics at Cambridge University. The Hansard Society is grateful to Ellwood and Atfield who have made this project possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a New Politics? Politics? Half of Us Claim to Be Interested in Politics; and Only an Approximate Quarter of Us Are Satisfied with the UK Parliament
    New paradigms in public policy NEW PARADIGMS IN PUBLIC POLICY Building a new The average UK citizen is disengaged and disappointed with politics. Seven in ten of us have little or no trust in politicians; only Building a new politics? politics? half of us claim to be interested in politics; and only an approximate quarter of us are satisfied with the UK parliament. Here, Gerry Stoker argues that citizens have to get more involved if the UK government is to effectively confront problems facing British society and find democratic, representative solutions. Academics fall into two established camps on the approaches we can take: one group suggests that policymakers should focus on restoring citizen faith in existing representative processes while the other urges them to get citizens more actively involved through new participatory and deliberative processes. We need social scientists Gerry Stoker to draw on and develop these insights, and take on the challenge of designing a new way to tackle anti-political attitudes. The new and evolving political, economic and societal challenges in twenty-first century Britain require policymakers to adapt and change the way they consider their craft. New paradigms in public policy, a series of reports published by the British Academy Policy Centre, examines a range of policy issues, explaining the current situation and policy approaches and making suggestions as to why and how concepts should be adapted, reformed or reinvented. SPONSORED BY ISBN: 978-0-85672-596-8 10 –11 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH Telephone: +44 (0)207 969 5200 Fax: +44 (0)207 969 5300 Registered Charity: Number 233176 by Gerry Stoker The British Academy, established by Royal Charter in 1902, champions and supports the humanities and social sciences across the UK and internationally.
    [Show full text]
  • By Professor Paul Webb (Sussex University) Who Addresses the Issue of Disaffection with Party Politics in Democratic Systems
    democracy and p olitical parties bbyy PProrofessofessorr PPaaulul Webb With commentaries by John Healey MP, Geoff Mulgan and Baroness Shephard Democracy Series Editorial Board: Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society Kate Jenkins, Vice Chair, Hansard Society Peter Riddell, The Times and Hansard Society Council Publications in the Democracy Series: Democracy and Islam Democracy and Voting Democracy and Capitalism Published by Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA. Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] © Hansard Society 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity, which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. The Hansard Society and the DCA are neither for nor against. They are, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. For further information on Hansard Society publications, visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk ISBN: 978 0 900432 68 3 Design, print and production by Premier Corporate Mail Limited Cover design by Ross Ferguson Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons The Democracy Series Democracy and Political Parties Contents Page No. Preface 2 Biographies 3 Political Parties and Democratic Disconnect: A Call for Research 5 Professor Paul Webb The challenge is to meld representation and participation 26 Geoff Mulgan The evidence is on the doorstep 29 Baroness Shephard Research is helpful – but action is essential 32 John Healey MP 1 Democracy and Political Parties The Democracy Series Preface Alex Brazier Editor, Democracy Series Political parties were, by far, the most dominant method of political organisation in 20th century Britain and they remain central to the functioning of the democratic system.
    [Show full text]
  • British Government and Politics | University College London
    10/02/21 PUBLG043: British Government and Politics | University College London PUBLG043: British Government and View Online Politics Professor Meg Russell 1. Kavanagh, Dennis, Richards, David, Smith M, Geddes A. British Politics. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2006. 2. Moran, Michael. Politics and Governance in the UK. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011. 3. Peele, Gillian. Governing the UK: British Politics in the 21st Century. 4th ed. Blackwell; 2004. 4. Leach R, Coxall WN, Robins LJ. British Politics. Vol Palgrave foundations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011. 5. Jones B, Norton P, Copus C, Garnett M. Politics UK. 8th ed. Routledge; 2014. 6. Jowell JL, Oliver D. The Changing Constitution. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2011. 1/85 10/02/21 PUBLG043: British Government and Politics | University College London 7. Dunleavy, Patrick. Developments in British Politics 7. Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. https://www.dawsonera.com/guard/protected/dawson.jsp?name=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/ shibboleth&dest=http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractVie w/S9781403940438 8. Dunleavy, Patrick. Developments in British Politics 8. Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. 9. Russell M. Constitutional Politics. In: Developments in British Politics 9. Palgrave Macmillan; 2011:7-28. 10. Richards D, Smith MJ, Hay C, eds. Institutional Crisis in 21st Century Britain. Vol Understanding governance. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9781137334398 11. Hazell R. Constitutional Futures Revisited: Britain’s Constitution to 2020. Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. 12. Bogdanor, Vernon. The British Constitution in the Twentieth Century. Vol British Academy centenary monographs. Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press; 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Gains and Strains
    GAINS AND STRAINS: THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR IN THE UK 1996-2006 The occasion for this last reappearance on a voluntary sector platform (the final one, I promise) is the tenth anniversary of the publication of the report of the Independent Commission1 and the chance I’ve been offered to reflect, both on what has happened since our report was published and on what that experience suggests for future developments . I’ve heard several times lately talk of a “Deakin Agenda” being completed (the Minister for Third Sector used that expression again the other day). I suppose it’s inevitable that the chair’s name gets stuck on the exercises like this: but today gives me the opportunity to stress that this report was in every sense a collective effort in which all the members of our Commission (some of whom are here today) were closely involved and one that was generously supported, both in cash (by the Joseph Rowntree and Esmee Fairbairn Foundations) and in kind. The report that we produced together stands on four legs. • First, our assessment of relations between VCS and government and our conclusion that the terms of that relationship needed to be radically changed and those changes given formal expression in a negotiated agreement. • Second, the pressing need for a change in the regulatory environment, especially that in which charities (a large part but not the totality of the sector) had to operate. • Third, the importance of cultural change within the sector to enable it to address the new challenges that were then emerging – not just in service delivery but across the whole range of its activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action Greg Power C10264 Carnegie A5 Report 1/6/06 12:36 Pm Page 2
    C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 31/5/06 4:43 pm Page 1 Democracy and Civil Society Programme Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action Greg Power C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 1/6/06 12:36 pm Page 2 Democracy and Civil Society Programme Contents 02 Introduction by the Carnegie UK Trust 03 About the Author 05 Author’s note 05 Introduction 05 1. Trends in Political Participation and Engagement 10 Participation in elections 10 Election turnout UK and Ireland 1945-2005 11 New patterns of political behaviour 13 Political participation 1986-2002 13 Conclusion 16 2. The Political Response to Changing Patterns of Engagement 17 The rhetoric of political empowerment 17 Policies for political empowerment 20 Citizenship and community 20 Local co-governance 21 Devolution and decentralisation 22 Conclusion 23 3. The Policy Community and the Pressure for Change 25 The rise of new citizens 25 Post-democracy: the case for institutional reform 26 Citizenship and democracy 28 Social justice and democracy 29 Media and politics 30 Conclusion 32 4. Next Steps for Democratic Engagement 34 1) Embedding democracy amongst ‘new citizens’ 35 2) Promoting participation and representation 37 3) Reaching the hard-to-reach 38 Conclusion 40 References 41 June 2006 C10264_Carnegie_A5_Report 1/6/06 12:36 pm Page 3 Personal Politics: Demoracy, Participation and Collective Action Introduction by the Carnegie UK Trust Personal Politics: Democracy, Participation and Collective Action is one of two publications commissioned by the Carnegie UK Trust to inform 03 the launch of the Trust’s new Democracy and Civil Society Programme. Carnegie’s interest in strengthening democracy and civil society goes back many decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinning on a Cleaner Cycle: How Media Management Became 'Respectable' Under the UK's Coalition Government
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Sussex Research Online Spinning on a cleaner cycle: how media management became 'respectable' under the UK's coalition government Abstract The issue of media management or ‘spin’ came to dominate Tony Blair’s time in office; so much so that even his own Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell, came to concede that they had over-used it. When David Cameron came to power, although he has acknowledged that he learnt many political lessons from Tony Blair, he was keen to ensure that his Government did not make the same mistakes in terms of the over-use of spin. In this article, based on interviews with key players, a comparison is made between the way the two prime ministers, and in particular their press secretaries, managed their media relations in their first years in office. This article, written by two political journalists who witnessed the first years of Blair and Cameron at first hand, characterises the Blair media regime as practising ‘spin heavy’ and the Cameron regime, under Andy Coulson, as practising ‘spin lite’. It concludes, that both in terms of relations with the media, and how that relationship played out vis a vis coverage, ‘spin lite’ was a more successful formulation. Keywords Spin, spin doctors, political correspondents, prime minister, press secretary, Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, David Cameron, Andy Coulson 1 Introduction "I cannot believe we are the first and only government that has ever wanted to put the best possible gloss on what you've done". So Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, told the Leveson inquiry into the ethics of the press on May 21st (Faulkner & Chapman 2012).
    [Show full text]