Suchergebnisse

The subdivision of larger territories into electoral districts is designed to enable representation for district populations in the national legislative body. This article establishes that spatial-type reforms such as the redrawing of electoral district boundaries can have profound and long-lasting, but often overlooked, organizational and ideational effects on local parties. The effects of constituency redrawing (the 1917–18 Boundary Commission and Review) are examined via a case study of the interwar Peterborough Divisional Labour Party in relation to three areas: (1) the structural organization of the local party, (2) the selection and retention of parliamentary candidates and party organizers, and (3) the local framing of national policy. The analysis argues that the boundary review and its creation of an enlarged parliamentary constituency consisting of Peterborough and the Soke of Peterborough produced political and organizational challenges that the party never fully resolved. Labour attempted but struggled to represent the interests of all the area's constituents – even the electoral victory of 1929 demonstrates the effects of campaign dynamism rather than rural breakthrough. It is important that parties consider these potential impacts when deciding how to respond to spatial–institutional change.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implementedto repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislationin Australia to intensify its mandatory regime aroundvaccines. It argues that attempts to underminefreedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

Unethical human experimentation has long been a murky feature of medical research, most notoriously in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Despite the subsequent creation of the Nuremberg Code principles for the protection of human subjects, harmful medical trials continue to be conducted in the name of scientific inquiry and for the advancement of public health. Most, but not all, of the victims are marginalized groups, racially, ethnically and/or socio-economically defined, those for whom justice is often little more than a utopian hope. The article examines the violence behind the beneficent arm of the state in its role as health provider, and how the collaboration with medical science and the pharmaceutical industry have resulted in laboratories of human suffering involving society's most vulnerable. By locating the abuse of human subjects of medical research within the paradigm of state crime the article highlights the growing propensity for serious harm and abuse, diluted by the more common use of the term unethical rather than "criminal", as a consequence of this state, public health and corporate triumvirate.