Suchergebnisse

"During the 1920s and 1930s, Britain faced many challenges in the international arena, and alternative polices were hotly debated not only in Parliament but also in wider political circles. These two decades constituted one of the few periods in British history when the country has experienced three-party politics. However, until now there has been no major study of the Liberal Party's central role in party-political debates on international policy. Richard Grayson's book fills that gap by documenting and assessing the party's views on foreign and imperial policy."

Peter Sikora, The Polish 'Few': Polish Airmen in the Battle of Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2018. xvii + pp. 574. ISBN: 978-1526-714855. Price £30.00.

Local studies of military service in the First World War have traditionally focused on 'Pals' or other units known to be linked to a specific area. However, the availability of new records online has revolutionized the way in which local studies can be carried out. A 'military history from the street' approach can now document and analyse service by all those from a local area who served. The article explains how such socio-military methods, as used in the author's monograph on West Belfast ( Belfast Boys, London, Continuum, 2009), can be adapted to other areas, with a particular focus on employment data not included in that study.

Much has now been written about the formation of the coalition government, and the competing analyses have a great relevance to how we understand the way the coalition has been operating. Indeed, if anybody is to form a view of where the coalition might go, it is important to have some view on why it was formed. Only by understanding the motives of those who created it can we even begin to imagine what the political agenda might look like at the time of the next election. There are broadly two versions of events. One is the necessity school of thought. This has been given its fullest treatment by David Laws. His narrative 22 Days in May (Biteback 2010) set out an account of even-handedness on the part of the Liberal Democrat leadership when it came to negotiations with the other two parties. In this version of events, a deal with Labour was primarily hindered by parliamentary arithmetic, and the added (alleged) problem that in any case Labour's entire approach to the negotiations was hostile. Much is made of the 'body language' of Labour figures. This case, which David Laws has set out more starkly than anyone, and was certainly based on inside knowledge, finds much favour with most Liberal Democrats. Through supporting the coalition deal overwhelmingly at a special party conference, and in the positions which so many have taken since the election, they have shown that they accept the basic 'no choice' argument; and they also believe that the Lib Dems are getting a good deal in terms of the policies being implemented by the coalition. A different school of thought focuses on ideology. It argues that the Lib-Con deal can best be understood as the logical outcome of the current Liberal Democrat leadership taking the party - in simple terms - to the right, away from the broadly centre-left policies on spending and the state which have previously dominated the Liberal Democrats. So when it came to negotiations there was more likely to be common ground between the Liberal Democrat team and the Conservatives, both on the pressing issues of the day and in terms of the general direction of travel on the central question of state spending. Adapted from the source document.

Richard S Grayson suggests that in making democratic localism work, the UK could look more at the United States' radically decentralised system. Using the example of Newark's pioneering mayor Cory Booker, he argues that strong elected mayors can bring about significant change, even in difficult circumstances.