A survey of American scholarly interpretations of the British political process. 5 major features characterize these studies: (1) British politics are instructive for the examples they offer for American theorists, (2) the overall American attitude toward the British system is favorable, (3) the main advantage of the British system is seen to be the balance between its various elements, (4) the US & British systems are often treated as "opposed ideal-types," & (5) the influence of W. Bagehot was paramount in molding the attitude of American political scientists toward the British system. Consequently, the thrust of American writing has been to analyze how Britain acquired the stability, legitimacy, & the successful combination of "strong" government which is at the same time responsive. One notable shortcoming of much of the American writing has been its generalizing tendency (eg, Lipset, Eckstein, Almond). An exception to the generally favorable American comments on British politics has been the new revisionist school which has published some devastating critiques of the British model (eg, Nustadt, Beer, Waltz, Putnam, Rose, Hargove, & the Brookings Instit). This is the result of a younger generation of Americans asking a different set of questions than their predecessors. S. Karganovic.
Cover -- Half-Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Notes on Contributors -- Introduction -- 1 Philip Gould's Life and Work -- 2 Friendship in Politics -- 3 The Start of Labour's Long March: 1985-1992 -- 4 The Unstarted Revolution -- 5 'Our Kind of Politics' -- 6 The Land and the Sea -- 7 Philip Gould and the Rise of the Scorekeepers -- 8 Philip Gould and the Art of Political Strategy -- 9 How Philip Gould Helped to Save the Conservative Party -- 10 A US perspective on 'The Philip Gould Project' -- 11 Life in the 'Death Zone' -- Index
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Regards the study of politics not so much as a discipline with a distinctive method but more as a field of study which is amenable to various approaches. Suggests that the contribution of history has been more a body of knowledge than a set of methods. (SJK)
THE THREE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE, "HOW BRITAIN VOTES" BY ANTHONY HEATH, "BRITISH DEMOCRACY AT THE CROSSROADS" BY PATRICK DUNLEAVY, AND "VOTERS BEGIN TO CHOOSE" BY RICHARD ROSE ALL SHARE A SENSE OF LOSS OF FAMILIAR LANDMARKS, AS THEY SEE BRITISH POLITICS LOOSING ITS SOCIAL OR CLASS RATIONALE, AND THE SOURCES FOR ELECTORAL CHANGE IN THE EVENTS, PERSONALITIES, AND PERFORMANCE AND POLICIES OF THE PARTIES. ALL THE BOOKS AGREE THAT THE OLD TWO-CLASS, TWO-PARTY MODEL HAS LOST ITS AUTHORITATIVENESS IN THAT IT EXCLUDES TOO MUCH IN BOTH SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND PARTY POLITICES. THIS REVIEW FOCUSES ON DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH APPROACHES, SOCIAL CLASS AND VOTING BEHAVIOR, ISSUES AND VOTING BEHAVIOR, AND PROSPECTS FOR THE PARTIES.
THE AUTHORS IDENTIFY KEY CHANGES IN SOCIETY AND THE MEDIA THAT HAVE SHAPED POLITICAL COMMUNICATION IN MANY DEMOCRACIES DURING THE POSTWAR PERIOD. THEY DESCRIBE THREE DISTINCT ERAS. IN THE FIRST, MUCH POLITICAL COMMUNICATION WAS SUBORDINATE TO RELATIVELY STRONG, STABLE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND BELIEFS. IN THE SECOND, FACED WITH A MORE MOBILE ELECTORATE, THE PARTIES INCREASINGLY PROFESSIONALIZED AND ADAPTED THEIR COMMUNICATIONS TO THE NEWS VALUES AND FORMATS OF LIMITED-CHANNEL TELEVISION. IN THE THIRD, STILL EMERGING AGE OF MEDIA ABUNDANCE, POLITICAL COMMUNICATION MAY BE RESHAPED BY FIVE TRENDS: INTENSIFIED PROFESSIONALIZING IMPERATIVES, INCREASED COMPETITIVE PRESSURES, ANTI-ELITIST POPULISM, A PROCESS OF CENTRIFUGAL DIVERSIFICATION, AND CHANGES IN HOW PEOPLE RECEIVE POLITICS.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.