of the United Kingdom 50TH ANNIVERSARY · PDF file... the brochure which you hold ... great...

Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom

50TH ANNIVERSARY

By all conventional indicators, the Association has arrived atits 50th Birthday in good condition. Indeed, at the other sideof an era in which the Social Science Research Council becamethe Economic and Social Research Council on ministerialwhim, we should be grateful we survived.

The PSA exists to represent and promote the study of politicsthroughout higher education. To celebrate our healthy survival in pursuing these aims, the PSA’s Executive Committee mounted‘Project 2000’. It has four objectives.

■ To raise the profile and standing of the PSA

■ To promote the study of politics

■ To increase membership of the Association

■ To improve the income and services of the Association

This Awards Dinner seeks to raise the profile of the profession, not just the PSA. So, we honour not only members of theprofession but also politicians and journalists who have made an outstanding contribution to the study and practice of politicsover the past fifty years.

I must mention, if only briefly, the other events which are part of ‘Project 2000’. We have already held a successful annualconference at the LSE, which attracted distinguished scholars from around the world. To great controversy, we launched theAssociation’s mug, which now adorns the nooks and cranniesknown as departmental kitchens throughout the land. There aretwo new publications, the brochure which you hold in your handand a ‘best of’ collection of articles in Political Studies, edited by

Patrick Dunleavy, Paul Kelly and Mick Moran. Finally, we introduceda major addition to the services for members; the new, expandedinteractive PSA web site. Members can find information about allAssociation’s events; update their personal information on theAssociation’s member database; access electronic versions of PSANews and Political Studies.

It is my pleasant duty to thank the Awards jury, made up of past Presidents of the Association and past editors of PoliticalStudies, who decided on their list with a startling lack of discord – a tribute to the winners. Also, I thank members of the Project 2000Committee – Jack Arthurs, John Benyon, Charlie Jeffery and Jon Tonge – for their hard work.

With great pleasure, I welcome everyone to this Awards Dinner. It may well be true that ‘experience of being disastrously wrong issalutary; no political scientist should be denied it, and not many are’(with apologies to J. K. Galbraith). Tonight, however, we abandonour normal, morbid interest in the inevitability of failure, don thegown of self-congratulation, and recognise the successes of ourcolleagues, whether academics, practitioners and commentators. If there are ‘very few facts, at least ascertainable facts, in politics’(Robert Peel), then one of the few facts is the quality and enduringcontribution of the PSA’s Laski award winners.

It is ever the way of these events that everyone thanks everyone for everything. As chair of the PSA, I can suffer from appallingtunnel vision. World events come and go but I ponder whether we are doing what members want. As the late, great DukeEllington would have said, ‘I love you madly’ for coming andmaking this event a success.

Professor R.A.W. RhodesChair, Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom

Welcome

In 1951, its first complete year, the PSA had 100members. Today we have 800 full members and 300 graduate members and numbers continue torise. The first annual conference was held at the LSE in 1950 and 50 members attended. The 50th

Anniversary Conference was also held at the LSE but this time 720 members attended.

1Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom | 50th Anniversary

A message from the Prime Minister

I am delighted to congratulate the Political Studies Association on

its 50th anniversary. The PSA is recognised throughout the world

as being a leader in its field, and its members can take pride in

its achievements.

The Government values highly the contribution of the academic

community to serving the wider needs of society. British political scientists have contributed

much in the last few years to key areas of policy such as citizenship education, and in carrying

out research which feeds into evidence-based policy making.

As the PSA enters its second half-century, many challenges remain. Devolution and constitutional

reform, and policy challenges as diverse as social exclusion, sustainable development and the new

economy, can all benefit from research by political scientists. The same is true in international

politics – the future of the EU, globalisation, and new, collective challenges in securing peace and

stability in Europe and beyond.

The new global economy requires an increasingly skilled and educated society. Political studies

at UK universities have a vitally important role in making sure we ally traditional critical skills in

argument, evaluation and analysis with the power of new technologies.

Building on its record over the last fifty years, these are challenges I am confident the PSA and

its members throughout the UK’s universities can meet.

2 Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom | 50th Anniversary

The Political Studies Association exists to develop and promote the study of politics.

A Guide to thePolitical Studies Association

As it moves into its second fiftyyears, the PSA is the leadingassociation in its field in the

UK, with an international membershipincluding academics in political scienceand current affairs, theorists andpractitioners, policy-makers, researchersand students in higher education.

The PSA has a well-deserved reputationfor serious scholarship. It is regularlyconsulted by higher education policy-makers and funding councils for itsadvice and expertise, and its research is used by the media, government,business and the voluntary sector in the UK and beyond.

The PSA provides a forum for scholarshipthrough three quality journals, published in association with Blackwell Publishers:

■ Political Studies is one of the most citedjournals in the field and attracts contributionsfrom academics of international standing.Through articles, reviews, debates andresearch notes, it reflects the vigour andimportance of the discipline of politics andcontributes significantly to the developmentof political science internationally

■ Politics is a key teaching resource,identifying the topics that students really needto know about. It has established a reputationfor lively writing, and contains debates andanalyses by both established and newmembers of the political science community

■ The British Journal of Politics andInternational Relations is a new journal aimed at influencing international debates inpolitical science. It encourages contributionsfrom scholars in all parts of the discipline and from all parts of the globe, and is fastattaining a reputation for innovativeinterdisciplinary research.

The PSA also provides information aboutpolitics and expertise through:

■ PSA News, a regular newsletter containing short articles and commentaries,news from departments, information onresearch grants and projects, plus details of conferences, specialist groups and other activities

■ PSA Directory, produced jointly with the British International Studies Association,an invaluable reference work listing allpolitical scientists in the UK and Ireland byuniversity and department. An online versionof the directory is also available to membersat the PSA website: www.psa.ac.uk

■ Media Register of Experts, compiled by the PSA from the latest research information,the register lists experts on politics andpolitical science in the UK

■ Studying Politics, a highly successfulbooklet promoting the study of politics inhigher education, distributed to all UK sixth-forms and colleges.

Journals

Other publications


The PSA offers a unique arena for theexchange of ideas and expertise through its:

■ Annual Conference, attracting leadingpoliticians, civil servants and academics, and comprising more than 100 specialistdiscussion panels across the whole range of the discipline: from government andinstitutions, through to policy studies,international relations, gender studies and political theory

■ Network of more than 40 SpecialistGroups, covering all major fields of researchin political science. Each provides a forum in which individuals with specialised researchand teaching interests can develop their ownseminars and conferences to supplement theAnnual Conference

■ Heads of Department Conferences, held to assist UK politics and political sciencedepartments with planning and training for research and teaching.

www.psa.ac.uk ‘Best Political Science Site in the World’ Lycos

The PSA’s award-winning website features arange of services exclusive to PSA members,including access to electronic versions of allPSA journals, Annual Conference papers, and the PSA Directory, as well as offeringmany resources in political science to thewider community.

The PSA promotes the study of politicsthrough a number of annual awards andprizes including:

■ The W.J.M. MacKenzie Prize for the BestBook published in political science

■ Four prizes for Best Dissertation in anyfield of political studies

■ The Bernard Crick Prize for Teaching in any field of political studies

■ The Sir Isaiah Berlin Prize for LifetimeContribution to Political Studies.

The PSA is committed to supporting the nextgeneration of political scientists through itsGraduate Network, which exists to promotelinks between postgraduate students inPolitics throughout the UK. The GraduateNetwork holds its own Annual Conference,regional group events and short conferencesfor members. All postgraduates are entitledto join the PSA at a reduced rate, includingfree Graduate Network membership.

PSA membership is open to teachers andresearchers in the field of political science,both in the UK and overseas, to researchstudents, university departments and toeveryone interested in the study and practiceof politics. There are separate categories ofmembership for people who are retired andfor corporate institutions.

Contents

A Guide to the Political

Studies Association

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

50 Years of the Political

Studies Association

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Political Studies

Association Hall of Fame

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Political Studies

Association 50th Anniversary

Award Winners

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Teaching and

Learning Politics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Disciplines of Politics

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Political Studies

and User Relevance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Activities

PSA online

Graduate Network

Membership

Awards

4

T he PSA, oddly, owes its creation to UNESCO. In a flush of post-warenthusiasm about the possibilities

of social science, UNESCO had initiateddiscussions on establishing internationalassociations of scholars in economics,sociology, law and politics. The discussionson politics, in which the LSE professorsG.D.H. Cole and William Robson wereinvolved, led to the establishment of theInternational Political Science Associationin September 1949. This was to beconstituted on the basis of nationalbodies. The PSA, whose foundingconference was held on 23-24 March 1950 in London, was the British response.

The committee that produced theinternational association had a clear andoptimistic vision of what political studies werefor: ‘Students of politics combine fact-findingwith value judgement and, from objectivestudy, derive practical conclusions for theimproved working of political institutions’.The fledgling PSA was less sure of itself. The letter drafted by Oxford’s NormanChester and the LSE’s Charles Wilson inNovember 1949 to canvas support for thefounding of the PSA was a masterpiece oflimited ambition. There was no statement of rationale save for the fact that otherdisciplines already had an association in theUK and that the international association had been formed. Beyond that, the ‘precisescope of the Association would require fullconsideration’, and it was not suggested ‘thatthe Association should immediately embarkon any ambitious functions or projects’.

The modesty of the founders’ ambition wasperhaps understandable. Political studies was a fledgling discipline in UK universitieswith only Oxford, the LSE, Cambridge andManchester having Chairs in subjects at least

50 Years of the Political Studies AssociationProfessor Charlie Jeffery

Dear SirNovember 1949

Proposed formation of a Universities Political Studies Association

It has been proposed that a Political Studies Association should be formed for Universityteachers in the United Kingdom.

Teachers in many other branches of academic studies already have an Association. In recentyears a considerable development has taken place in political studies in the Universities.The time would now appear opportune for the formation of an Association coveringteachers in this field. The formation in September of an International Political ScienceAssociation supported in the first instance by a grant from UNESCO adds point to theneed for the establishment of an Association in this country.

The precise scope of the Association would require full consideration. At the moment it issuggested that membership should be open to all University teachers in Political Theory andInstitutions, Government and Public Administration, Constitutional and AdministrativeLaw, International Relations, International Law and similar subjects.

It is not suggested that the Association should immediately embark on any ambitiousfunctions or projects. An annual meeting for the discussion of papers and the exchange ofideas ought to be possible. The arranging of other meetings, the publication of some kind ofresearch and information bulletin, perhaps even of a journal, would also come up forconsideration.

If this letter meets with a favourable reception it is proposed to convene a first meeting early next year at which, in addition to the discussion of one or two papers, an Associationcould be formally constituted. We invite the cooperation of all University teachers in political studies.

Yours sincerely

Ernest Barker, D.W. Brogan, G.D.H. Cole, D.N. Chester, HectorHetherington, H.J. Laski, Lindsay of Birker, W.J.M. Mackenzie, M. Oakeshott, W.A. Robson, K.B. Smellie, E.C.S. Wade, K.C. Wheare, C.H. Wilson

Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom | 50th Anniversary

The Founding Conference

ChronologyFifty Years of UK PoliticalHistory –– and the Story of thePolitical Studies Association

broadly definable as politics. Otherwiselectureships in political studies were scattered around departments of economics,philosophy and history. There was also anunderlying directional dispute to negotiate.This broadly ranged an Oxford groupstruggling to legitimise a new subject in anancient university (‘always looking under thebed for historians’, as the PSA veteran FrankBealey once put it) against a London grouplent more autonomy and self-confidence bythe LSE’s Fabian origins.

For these reasons the founders trodcautiously, rejecting the internationalassociation’s (and the LSE’s) notion of apolitical science for the more neutral political studies – and then even wateringthat down further with ‘and allied subjects’!Tellingly, Jack Hayward described these earlymoves to institutionalise political studies asthe ‘dawn of a self-deprecating discipline’.

The inaugural conference also proceeded indifficult circumstances, with the country’shighest profile politics professor and theconference’s keynote speaker, Harold Laski,falling terminally ill on the eve of theconference. The PSA’s response as DavidButler recalls was both gallant and, as befits afledgling organisation lacking secure reserves,financially cautious: ‘My main memory is ofWillie Robson getting us to vote a lifetimemembership to the dying Harold Laski’.

Butler, now the doyen of British electoralstudies, then a graduate student working withNorman Chester, has good cause to recall thishaving been ‘asked’ by Chester to organise theinaugural conference – even to the extent ofrunning all of its financial transactions throughhis personal, student bank account! Butlerevidently did a good job, with around 50lecturers from twelve universities attending,passing a constitution and electing a Committee(with Chester as the inaugural PSA Chairman).

The Committee provided an organisationalfocus which established the PSA Conferenceas an annual event with, as Frank Bealeyrecalls, a series of memorable programmesincluding Ernest Barker’s 1954 description of Nazism, delivered in an unreconstructedLancashire accent, as a ‘mixture of‘egelianism and ‘ooliganism’ and EdwardHeath’s speech in 1955 on ‘The Art ofWhipping’.

The PSA’s Founding Committee (1950)

Norman Chester (Chairman)Reg Bassett (Secretary)A.H. HansonJ.A. MackW.J.M. MackenzieR.S. MilneK.B. SmellieH. StreetDavid ThomsonSir Charles Webster

The Committee also moved quickly beyondthe caution of the PSA’s founding letter to establish a PSA journal, Political Studies,which appeared for the first time in February1953. In uncanny anticipation of the laterpractice of soliciting competitive tenders for the publication of Political Studies, theCommittee flirted first with Blackwells, then with Kegan Paul before finally strikingan agreement with Oxford University Press. The deal was for three numbers of 96 pageseach per year to sell for 27s. 6d. or 25s. formembers (the main part of an overallmembership package of 30s.!).


1950 Labour holds on to power at the General Election, but with a narrowoverall majority of 5. The Political StudiesAssociation of the United Kingdom isformed, to popular acclaim. Its firstconference is held in March.

1951 Winston Churchill returns asPrime Minister as the Conservatives winthe General Election with an overallmajority of 17. Labour polls 227,067 more votes than the Conservatives.

1952 Elizabeth II becomes Queen on 6 February.

1953 Political Studies, the PSA’shouse journal, makes its first appearance.

1954 Crichel Down case occurs,revisited in every British politics/civilservice textbook ever since.

“Mixture of ‘Egelianism and ooliganism‘”

Political Studies: the PSA’s First Journal


The founding Editor was Wilfrid Harrisonfrom Oxford who took on the job – in hisown words – ‘in a fit of absence of mind’without prior experience and, indeed, withoutmuch experience at all in the PSA to be ableto draw on. He nonetheless did an admirablejob, laying the foundations from whichPolitical Studies has developed into one of the world’s leading politics journals. A reviewcommissioned by the International PoliticalScience Association in 1961 both capturedHarrison’s own contribution but also some ofthe enduring qualities of Political Studieswhich still apply today: ‘Aided by his friendsand colleagues Harrison has succeeded inmaking it informative in many ways. It doesnot cling to any special school of thought butis rather eclectic in what it prints. Politicaltheory and foreign governmental systems areusual subjects, but others are not neglected.It is British in tone and sometimes in outlook,but fortunately signs of insularity are rare’.(On the matter of insularity, though, PSA

founder member Douglas Verney does recall a 1951 PSA Conference paper by the BelgianJohn Goormaghtigh on the new EuropeanCoal and Steel Community. This provoked thecomment from William Robson that ‘he wasexpressing the sentiment of all present thatthere was little interest in this development’!)

The PSA was launched just at the point whenpolitics expanded rapidly in British universities.By the mid-1950s most universities hadestablished at least a couple of lectureships in political studies, with these typically thenbuilding the core of new departments ofpolitics. The expansion of the university sectorin the 1960s and the growing presence ofcourses on politics in the emergingpolytechnic sector added further impetus.Despite a rather bleaker period of stagnationin the later 1970s and 1980s, the trajectoryof growth has resumed with over 90 higher

50 Years of the Political Studies Association

education institutions with 14,000 studentplaces on politics courses by the year 2000. The subject matter of political studies in the UK has also broadened immensely. Early, rather anxious, debates about what the intellectual ‘core’ of political studies (orscience) was, or should be, dissipated rapidlyinto a pragmatic and open-mindedexploration of the boundaries of politicalanalysis which has drawn heavily on USpolitical science, but has largely avoided its periodic lapses into theoretical rigidity. An early emphasis was, naturally enough, on British politics. Richard Rose’s recollectionthat there were simply ‘very few books toread’ when he began studying British politicsin 1953 was quickly remedied (now one ofthe eminences grises of the profession, aglance at the list of over 400 books and otherpublications on his CV might suggest Rosehad taken it entirely on himself to remedy the deficit!).

While teaching and research were typicallyorganised around the classic triumvirate ofpolitical theory, government and internationalrelations, new specialisms emerged throughgrowing contacts with political scientistselsewhere and as new theories and issuesbecame prominent. Over time comparativepolitics, area studies, gender studies, publicpolicy research, environmentalism, Europeanintegration, development studies, politicaleconomy and public opinion research have all become established fields of enquiry.

Perhaps the clearest indicator of the growthand differentiation of UK political studies is in the number of politics journals available to the discipline. When Political Studies waslaunched there were just four other Britishpolitics journals: International Affairs, PublicAdministration, Political Quarterly andParliamentary Affairs. By the PSA’s 25thanniversary in 1975, Norman Chester counted‘half a dozen more’. By the year 2000 even

Dear Colleagues

It is with great pleasure that the Political Studies Association of Ireland greets its sisterassociation the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom on this the occasion ofits 50th Anniversary. While the PSAI is a much younger organisation than the PSA it has

taken inspiration from your success. The promotion of the development of political studies and theadvancement of learning in the art and science of government and in other branches of politicalsciences has been an aim long associated with the PSA and is one that is shared by the PSAI. In these days of voter decline in the participation of politics it is more important than ever thatnational political studies associations foster the advancement of the study of politics and its relatedareas. It is through such education that national associations can make a difference. Throughoutits 50-year history the PSA has made such a difference and long may it continue to do so.

Gary Murphy, Political Studies Association of Ireland

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM IRELAND

Growth of a Discipline

Chronology


1955 Churchill resigns as PrimeMinister. The Conservatives underAnthony Eden win a majority of 54 overLabour and win almost half the total vote(49.7%). Attlee retires as Labour leaderand is succeeded by Hugh Gaitskell.

1956 Suez crisis leads to futile Anglo-French military action against ColonelNasser of Egypt (who had nationalised theSuez Canal Company). Eden explainsBritain’s position in a speech to theCommons on 4 November, declaring ‘We are not at war with Egypt. We are in an armed conflict’.

1957 Eden resigns as PM, replaced by Macmillan.

1958 European Economic Communityis born – without Britain.

1959 The Conservatives have neverhad it so good as they sweep to their third consecutive election victory with an overall majority of 100. The Liberalsalso achieve a hat-trick. They again win amere 6 seats, although their vote more thandoubles from the nadir of 722,405 votesfour years earlier.

individual publishers like Blackwells,Routledge and Oxford University Press – thecurrent incarnations of the three publishersPSA had negotiated with in 1951-52 – wereproducing over 20 politics journals each.

The challenge for the PSA has been to keeppace with the growth of the politics discipline,its changing nature and growing diversity. It has certainly done so in terms ofmembership. One year after its foundationconference in 1950 it had 100 members, by 1960 179 and by 1975 600. On its 50th

Anniversary in 2000, the number had reached1,100, spread across 95 institutions in the UKand ranging from graduate students to retiredmembers. The spirit of inclusiveness was notalways a generous one, with polytechniclecturers only admitted in 1969, and noprovision for postgraduate membership untilthe late 1970s. Nor did the growth of theAssociation mesh well with the rather clubbishatmosphere fostered by the founding fathers,which provoked a ‘coup’ in 1975 led by BrianBarry, now Professor at Columbia University inNew York, and supported by Jack Haywardand Rod Rhodes, the latter becoming Secretaryof the Association, and was in the saddle again

“Canal trouble, Mr Eisenhower? Don’t hesitate to ask my advice…”

MICHAEL CUMMINGS, DAILY EXPRESS, 27.4.59

Dear Colleagues

Sincere congratulations with your Association’s fiftieth anniversary. The Dutch PoliticalScience Association was created in 1950 as ‘Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap derPolitiek’ (Dutch Circle for Political Science). Indeed, it was a small circle and only part

of its early members were political science teachers. Its creation had been encouraged by theUNESCO and the International Political Science Association, set up in 1949 to bringtogether political scientists from various countries and to sharpen the outlines of politicalscience, separate from such disciplines as law, history, and sociology. Jan Barents, since 1948the holder of the chair of political science at the University of Amsterdam, was a member of theIPSA Executive Committee between 1949 and 1955 and in line with the IPSA program heinitiated the foundation of the Dutch Association.

We appreciate the work done by your association, and are well aware of your performance asa national association, in particular the number of specialist groups. Congratulations. We send you our best wishes for the years to come and hope to meet at internationalconferences to discuss our common interests in the various branches of the political sciences.

Sincerely yours,

Robert H Lieshout, President and Bob Reinalda, Secretary DPSA (Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap der Politiek)

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM THE NETHERLANDS

Growth of the PSA


25 years later as PSA Chair. In 1975, though,Rhodes’ role was ‘to shut up and be theSecretary and do as I was told’! Later MikeGoldsmith and John Benyon set about thetransformation of PSA finances.

The PSA Executive Committee (January 1975)

A.H. Birch (Chairman)Geoffrey MarshallGraeme MoodieFred RidleyPeter SelfPeter Woodward (Secretary)

Naturally, the PSA Annual Conference haschanged much since the inaugural event in1950. Long-time PSA members like FrankBealey, Nevil Johnson and Peter Pulzer allrecall a cosy, club-like atmosphere in the earlyyears, with everyone attending eachpresentation (with around 7-8 in total) andknowing each other. As the Association hasgrown, so the conference has grown andbecome more complex. A latter day DavidButler’s personal bank account wouldcertainly not be up to the task of runningtoday’s conference. At the 50th AnniversaryConference held at the LSE in April 2000,there were some 154 panels, with at least 12running in parallel at any one time, with wellover 400 papers presented, and over 700political scientists in attendance.

Key themes at the 2000 Conference includedconstitutional reform, the role of new mediain elections, the British intelligence services,the performance of the Labour government,European Economic and Monetary Union,Russia ‘Ten Years After’, multiculturalism, and round tables led respectively by BrianBarry and Jack Hayward on Culture andDemocracy and the British Study of Politics


50 Years Old: Time to Start Crossing the Channel!

Colleagues who turn 50 are sometimes already starting to feel old and grey and to feellike they are going to be slowly but surely pushed aside by those arrogantyoungsters… The (methodologically dubious) comparison stops here. A 50-year old

political science association is not necessarily an ageing one! It all depends on the extent towhich it manages to inject enough fresh blood from time to time.

Our own association is both quite old and very young. It is old because its roots can be tracedback to the Belgian national political association which existed between 1951 and 1979. It isyoung because it is only in 1996 that a mix of experienced academics and enthusiastic juniorscholars created a brand new association on the French-speaking side, now bringing togetherthe vast majority of active French-speaking Belgian political scientists.

What can we hope for the future development of the PSA? If I were to speak for myself, I would make two parallel wishes.

On the one hand, I wish that the PSA will open itself more to the rest of Europe (or to Europetout court… I often feel like I am 2000 miles away from the continent when I stay in theUK…). It is surely a fact that political science in the UK – however excellent and establishedit may be – has this tendency to remain too “insular”.

On the other hand, I wish that our colleagues from “the Isles” will open up more to otherEuropean languages (that includes French), and hence gain access to a whole “Latin” political science literature which is not a mere reproduction of the predominant English-language writings. There is clearly a lot to be gained in a “cross-fertilisation” of differentresearch traditions, and national political associations should be able to help supportinitiatives in this respect.

This being said, I wish all the best to the PSA for the next 50 years, and hope to make it to the centennial ceremony in 2050 in London, by then the capital city of one of the 84 European federated region-states, the Republic of Southern England…

Prof. Benóit Rihoux,

Secretary (1997-2000) of the Association Belge de Science Politique – Communauté française de Belgique (ABSP-CF).

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM BELGIUM

Chronology


1960 Gaitskell promises to ‘fight, fightand fight again’ for the Labour Partyagainst unilateralists and the Left.

1962 Macmillan ‘loses’ one third ofhis cabinet in the ‘Night of the LongKnives’.

1963 Macmillan resigns. AlecDouglas-Hume later ‘emerges’ as leader.Harold Wilson becomes new leader of theLabour Party following the death ofGaitskell. Britain applies unsuccessfully tojoin the European Economic Community.

1964 Labour wins an overall majorityof 5 (as in 1950) at the General Election.

1965 Douglas-Hume resigns andEdward Heath is elected under new rules asConservative leader.

1966 Labour wins a substantialmajority of 96 under its manifesto slogan‘Time for Decision’.

1967 Jeremy Thorpe replaces JoGrimond as Liberal leader.

in the Twentieth Century. Keynote speakersincluded Kenneth Clarke, MP and Robert Dahland Elinor Ostrom, both leading world figuresin the discipline from the USA.

Much of the diversity of the contemporaryconference can be attributed to the forty or so Specialist Groups the PSA runs tosupport research and debate on particularareas of study. These range from AlternativeElectoral Systems to Women in Politics, fromthe Politics of Health to Diplomacy, fromAmerican Politics to Greek Political Thought.The diversity of conference also reflects thenew ideas brought forward by a strong PSAGraduate Network which has developed intothe major recruiting ground for the nextgeneration of politics academics.

The wider portfolio of PSA activities has alsoexpanded radically, supported by the proceeds

of an extremely successful publishingpartnership with Blackwell Publishers Ltd. The PSA now produces three journals withBlackwells: Political Studies, now in its 48thvolume, with a circulation of 2,400, and oneof the leading politics journals worldwide;Politics, focused on surveys and debates foruse in teaching politics at university; and the new British Journal of Politics andInternational Relations, now in its secondvolume, which is quickly establishing itself asa showcase for the work of the UK politicalstudies community.

The PSA journals are supplemented by arange of publications and services designed to support the profession, including an award-winning website at http://www.psa.ac.uk,PSA News, and regular conferences of Headsof Department of Politics designed to discussdevelopments in higher education policy.

“After 12 years I think the people will be very wise to say: Thankyou, carry on.”

VICKY, EVENING STANDARD, 14.8.63

Dear Colleagues

On the behalf of the Swiss Political Science Association (Association Suisse de SciencePolitique/Schweizerische Vereinigung for Politische Wissenschaft) I send fraternalgreetings to the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom commemorating

its foundation 50 years ago.

The integration of European nation states, the emergence of a European political system and thepersistence of national political systems pose challenges to political actors but also to politicalscientists. As scientists we have to analyse political structures and processes. For that we needinfrastructure. Out national professional associations, like the Political Studies Association, areof particular importance in that regard. In future we will need much closer co-operation betweenthe European national scientific communities. I am sure the Political Studies Association willcope successfully and efficiently with that challenge, as it has done with the challenge of creatinga British scientific community in political science in the past 50 years.

Prof. Dr Klaus ArmingeonChair Swiss Political Science Association

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM SWITZERLAND


The PSA also maintains a dialogue with ‘sister’ associations worldwide and has astrong presence at meetings of the AmericanPolitical Science Association, the EuropeanConsortium for Political Research and its once parental body, the International PoliticalScience Association. All this is – and needs to be – run by a much larger ExecutiveCommittee.

The PSA Executive Committee (2000)

Prof Rod Rhodes (Chair)Prof John Benyon (Treasurer)Dr Paul Carmichael (Secretary)Dr Lynn BennieProf Terrell CarverMr Philip CowleyProf David DenverProf Patrick DunleavyDr David DunnDr Justin FisherDr Lucy JamesProf Jeremy JenningsDr Paul KellyDr Charles LeesDr Jennifer Lees-MarshmentMr Sean McGoughDr Eric ShawProf David MarshDr Paul TaggartDr Jonathan TongeProf Richard TopfDr Ursula Vogel

Increasingly important is the growingengagement of the PSA and politicsacademics with policy-makers. On the onehand the PSA is an established intermediaryfor feeding advice, ideas and knowledge toagencies involved in teaching quality andresearch assessment, and in research funding.On the other, politics research is increasinglyaddressed to a dialogue with ‘users’,practitioners and opinion-formers in politics,


Dear Colleagues

The PSA is fifty years old. In contrast the European Consortium for Political

Research is a mere stripling of barely thirty, so this is a fraternal message of

appreciation and congratulations from the younger generation to its revered and

respected elders.

The PSA is not among the very oldest political science associations in the world.

The American and Canadian associations predate it by many decades, the Finnish

Association was founded in 1935, and the French association was set up a year before the

PSA, but it stands out for two admirable features.

The PSA is one of the larger and certainly one of the most active and impressively organised

professional associations in political science, not just in Western Europe, but across the globe.

In this sense it is something of a model of what can and should be done, even when resources

have been drastically reduced, when numbers have fallen, and pressures to reduce activity and

enthusiasm are building up all around.

Second, the members of the PSA show an admirable quality. They are international and

outward looking. Various studies have shown that Political Studies, like the British economy,

is more open to the world than many other national journals. As IPSA and the ECPR know

from long experience, the British political scientists are more likely to get involved in

international organisations, and to attend international conferences than most other national

groups in the profession. In this respect, the internationalist record of British political scientists

stands in curious contrast to the UK’s reputation as isolated from Europe and as the

‘Awkward Partner’ of the EU.

The ECPR sends its warmest congratulations to the PSA and wishes it well in its next

fifty years.

Ken Newton

Executive Director, European Consortium for Political Research

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM THE ECPR

Chronology


1969 British troops are sent toNorthern Ireland. Street fighting alsobreaks out within the PSA as Polytechniclecturers are admitted to the Association.

The voting age is lowered to 18.

1970 All change as the Conservativesscore a surprise election victory with amajority of 30 seats. Britain again appliesto join the EEC.

1971 Industrial Relations Actintroduced in an attempt to curb union power.

1972 Widespread violence in NorthernIreland leads to the suspension of itsparliament. Direct rule is introduced.

1973 Britain joins the EEC. Threeday week introduced amid fuel crisis.Heath Government floats the pound anddashes for growth, attempting to rescueailing industries.

1974 The Conservatives poll 226,000votes more than Labour, but gain 4 fewerseats and leave office. Labour achieve anoverall majority of 3 at a second electionlater that year.

the civil service, the media and the privateand voluntary sectors. Much of this has to do with a fuller openness of government tosocial science research throughout the 1990s,although the effort that the PSA has made inreshaping understandings of politics researchin co-operation with key bodies like theEconomic and Social Research Council hasalso been of great importance.

On its 25th Anniversary in 1975 – to whichtwo editions of Political Studies werededicated – the assessments of the PSA’sfuture prospects given by the ChairmanNorman Chester and Secretary PeterWoodward were surprisingly downbeat.Chester was concerned both about theprestige of political studies (‘our professionalservices are not greatly in demand’) and bythe ‘failure of any central core of acceptedlearning or theory to emerge’ in the study ofpolitics. Woodward’s concerns, befitting theposition of Secretary, were more down toearth, pointing out ‘the financial difficultiesthat a body like the PSA could face simplycontinuing with current activities’ in the thenprevailing ‘mood of austerity’.

The current assessment could hardly be more different. The insights and findings of political studies research are now strongly ‘in demand’ by policy-makers and opinion-formers, and the discipline and the PSA are at ease with the diversity and pluralism ofpolitical studies, with few seeing the need to search for the Holy Grail of a generaldisciplinary ‘core’. And the PSA now has thecapacity, based on effective partnerships andgood financial management, not just simplyto continue but to go on developing anddiversifying its portfolio of activities. The PSAis certainly no longer representative of a ‘self-deprecating’ discipline, but is rather enteringits second fifty years with confidence andunusual vigour.

This piece has drawn from the contributions by:Norman Chester, Wilfrid Harrison and PeterWoodward to Political Studies, Vol. 23, Nos. 2-3(1975); Frank Bealey, Jack Hayward and RichardRose to PSA News, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1990); JackHayward, ‘British Approaches to Politics’, in JackHayward, Brian Barry, Archie Brown (eds), TheBritish Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century,Oxford University Press, 2000; and informationsupplied by Hugh Berrington, David Butler,George Jones, Nevil Johnson, Geraint Parry, PeterPulzer, Rod Rhodes and Douglas Verney.

Dear Colleagues

For human beings, the age of 50 is usually described as the meridian altitude of life. Forthe British Political Studies Association (PSA), however, 50 surely is just a beginning.The Swedish Political Science Association (SWEPSA) – which has still not celebrated

its 30th anniversary – hereby convey its most sincere congratulations to the PSA. Political science is still a growing subject and the national associations have an important roleto play, as gardeners in the garden of political science.

Swedish Political Science Association

GREETINGS TO THE PSA FROM SWEDEN

“The Upper Clyde is a special lame duck.”

NICHOLAS GARLAND, DAILY TELEGRAPH

The Outlook


Harold J. Laski was one of the founders ofthe PSA. And the fiftieth anniversaryawards have affectionately been named

‘The Laskis’. He is an ideal figure afterwhich to name anaward since he wasinteresting,influential anddangerous. Laski

knew many major leaders intimately, suchas Churchill, Nehru and F. D. Roosevelt. He was chair of the Labour Party’s NationalExecutive Committee during the 1945election. He was a thorn in the side of theleadership, but half the Cabinet turnedout for his funeral in 1950. Laski wroteendlessly and on a wide range of subjects.He was a successful journalist and publiclecturer, who earned large sums for toursof America. He was a radical, in later life aquasi-Marxist, and the author of manyovertly political tracts.

As such he sounds like a cross between amodern academic superstar and a leftistactivist. If he had been no more than this hewould now be entirely forgotten, and perhapsjustly so. However, he was also a brilliant anddedicated university teacher. Generations ofstudents at the LSE found him an inspirationalteacher, and numerous PhD students a diligentsupervisor. Laski was revered by the studentsfrom the colonies who came to the LSE whilstthe British Empire remained intact. Born into a wealthy and cultured Jewish family inManchester, Laski rebelled early and made his own way. He was unstuffy and in no way racist or patronising. No wonder then that there is still a Laski Centre in India,committed to promoting his works and hismemory. Laski was also committed to the cause of workers’ education in Britain andtirelessly lectured to working class audiences up and down the country.

Laski was also a scholar. After his death hisreputation declined sharply, but since the1980s and 1990s it has risen steadily. Two major biographies were published in1993. His early work was devoted to politicalpluralism, to the critique of state sovereigntyand to the idea that all authority is by naturefederative. His magisterial A Grammar ofPolitics (1925) attempted to combine thispluralism with a hard headed analysis of themodern state. His Introduction to Politics(1931) and The Rise of European Liberalism(1936) are still excellent introductions to theirsubjects and brilliantly written.

Laski’s political writings are interventions inconditions now long past. The price of suchcontemporary relevance is often to become no more than an historical document to later readers. But many of his later works are still worth reading. Anyone interested in constitutional reform in modern Britain can benefit from and be cautioned by hisReflections on the Constitution (1951). The American Presidency (1938) remains auseful starting point. Many of his essays, such as those collected in The Danger of Being a Gentleman (1939), are gems. The Holmes-Laski letters are fascinating.

Laski was a worthy, if complex, founder. He is also still relevant. As we try to cope with understanding the increasing complexityof government both nationally and supra-nationally his views on the plural nature ofpolitics and the necessity of a federal divisionof labour in governance remain a startingpoint for new thinking.

Paul Hirst

Ernest Barker was the first occupant of theCambridge Chair in Political Science whichwas founded in 1928 with the aid of theRockefeller Foundation. He held the chair

for eleven years until his retirement. He came to the Chair comparatively late in his professional life: born in 1874, he was an established scholar and ableadministrator, having served prior to hisappointment at Cambridge as Principal ofKing’s College since 1920. Some of his bestwork was to follow, both during his tenureof the Chair, and in the long and productiveretirement which he enjoyed afterwards.

Barker was the eldest of seven children born to a miner turned farm labourer. At his villageschool he was fortunate to serve as a ‘pace-maker’ for the son of a local businessman whowas working for a scholarship and beganascending one of few educational ladders thenavailable to an Oxford scholarship, fellowshipand lectureship.

Barker brought to the discipline of Politics awealth of learning, a lively and lucid expression,and an exemplary even-handedness. His fortelay in the history of political thought, a

specialism which hadgrown out of his earlyworks on Greekpolitical thought andtwenty-one years’membership of theOxford History

Faculty preceding his time at King’s CollegeLondon. But – inspired by such Victorianpolymaths as Lord Bryce – Barker straddled theideas/institutions boundary in political studieswith considerable ease. His studies of thepolitical systems of the emergent totalitarianregimes of continental Europe in the inter-warperiod are particularly illuminating, focused, asthey were, by the relevant doctrines.

Like his Victorian mentors, too, Barker was nonarrow academic political scientist. He careddeeply for the well-being of a wider public, bothnational and international, and devoted himselfto numerous cultural and educational causesthroughout his career. He was knighted in 1944

Political Studies AssociationHall of Fame

Although the Political Studies Association has been in existence for a ‘mere’ fifty years, scholarly work in the area of political studies has a much longer life. Here the PSA pays tribute to several deceased influential thinkers and writers within the discipline.

Harold J. Laski (1893-1950)

Ernest Barker (1874-1960)

Chronology


The Liberal revival continues, with theparty gaining over 6 million votes in each election.

The Sunningdale Agreement introducesdevolved power sharing to NorthernIreland, but collapses after 5 months.

1975 Heath quits as Conservativeleader after being outpolled by Thatcher.The Political Studies Association launchesa 25th Anniversary edition of PoliticalStudies. Rod Rhodes becomes PSASecretary.

1976 Wilson resigns and is replaced byJim Callaghan as Labour leader. DavidSteel is elected Liberal leader. LordHailsham complains of ‘electivedictatorship’.

1977 Labour relies upon a pact withthe Liberals to remain in office as itsmajority disappears.

1978-79 Winter of Discontent withlarge number of strikes.

1979 The Conservatives sweep topower with an overall majority of 43 in alandmark election. Margaret Thatcherbecomes the first woman PM. The Labourmanifesto ‘The Labour Way is the BetterWay’ (it attacked tax cuts, by the way)

for his contribution to the Books Commission ofthe Allied Ministers of Education. He admiredthe character and achievements ofEngland/Britain, perceptions of which informedhis abiding liberalism and his scholarship.

Julia Stapleton

Sammy Finer began and ended his career in Oxford but his most creative years werespent at the University of Keele (where he was the first Professor of PoliticalInstitutions, from 1951-1966) and inretirement. He published A Primer of PublicAdministration and his biography of EdwinChadwick. He went on to write innovativebooks on pressure groups (AnonymousEmpire) and The Man on Horseback a wideranging comparative study of politicalintervention by the military. His populartextbook on Comparative Government wasbased on his Keele undergraduate lectures.In the 1970s, Finer turned his attention tothe British party system and its adversarialfeatures. He devoted his retirement to amonumental three volume comparativestudy of The History of Government fromthe Earliest Times. This reflected hisintellectual boldness and grasp of essentials, combining empirical referencepoints with conceptual comprehensiveness.Finer offered sureness of touch and felicityof phrase.

In a profession where prudent specialisationtended to dominate, Finer stood out for hisimaginative range of conception and panachein execution. Innovation was couched in aswashbuckiling style, stimulating to read. He was Chair of the PSA Executive from 1965-68. Advocates of the new institutionalismhave much to learn from a protagonist of thebest of old institutionalism.

Jack Hayward

George Douglas Howard Cole, usuallyknown by his initials, joins this pantheonbecause in 1944 he became the first

Chichele Professor ofSocial and PoliticalTheory at Oxford, a post he held untilretirement in 1957.Yet in other respectshis life and work is a

challenge to today’s academic politicalscience (a term he always resisted, which isone reason why this association ‘studies’politics). Instead of a narrow discipline,talking to itself in an obscure language,Cole wanted relevance, engagement,accessibility and breadth.

His own work exemplified these characteristics.A polymath who ignored academic boundarylines, he held academic posts in three differentdisciplines (philosophy, economics, and socialand political theory) and could well have heldposts in at least two others (history andliterature). His output was prodigious,including over a hundred books and an endlessstream of articles and pamphlets. ‘Mr. Cole’swhole life would appear to be a protestagainst the doctrine of restriction of output,’declared one reviewer in 1920, when thisoutput had scarcely started. He was a one-person research assessment exercise.

Along with figures such as Harold Laski and R.H. Tawney, Cole was a leading intellectual ofthe left in Britain during the first half of thetwentieth century. He came to prominenceearly in the century as the exponent of guildsocialism, a doctrine of industrial and socialself-government, in opposition to the Webbianversion of state socialism; and he retained anenduring commitment to these ideas. This isthe link between his first book The World ofLabour (1913) and his final multi-volumeHistory of Socialist Thought (1953-60).

“I’m a bit worried about those polls.”

NICHOLAS GARLAND, DAILY TELEGRAPH, 1.10.74

Sammy Finer

G. D. H. Cole (1889-1959)


Between these books was a lifetime ofintellectual (and political) activity on behalf of the labour movement and its variousinstitutions, from a perspective he liked todescribe as ‘sensible extremism’, and acommitment to politics as an enterprise ofpublic philosophy – including the academicpractitioners of the discipline.

Tony Wright

Michael Oakeshott was a Fellow ofGonville and Caius College, Cambridgefrom 1925 to 1951 and Professor ofPolitical Science at the London School ofEconomics from 1951 until his retirement in 1968. Four major philosophical concernsrun through his writings. He was deeplyinterested in the nature of philosophy,which he systematically explored inExperience and its Modes (1933), thenature of rationality, which he explored in Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays(1962) the nature of human conduct, most systematically analysed in On HumanConduct (1975), and the nature of historicalinquiry, articulated in a number of essayscollected in his On History and Other Essays (1983).

For Oakeshott philosophy was uniquelyconcerned to undertake a relentless critique of assumptions with a view to offering acomprehensive and presuppositionless accountof human experience. Rationality was not anatural or transcendental faculty or power buta form of behaviour, and was embedded in andstructured by traditions governing an activity.As for human conduct, it consisted in pursuit of wished-for satisfaction within a given socialcontext in consonance with establishedpractices. History was a disinterested attempt toconstruct a coherent account of the past in itsown terms.

For Oakeshott all human associations werestructured in terms of practices. Since the latterwere instrumental and pragmatic or non-

instrumental and moral in nature, allassociations were enterprise or moralassociations. For him political communitybelonged to the latter category. To highlightthis fact he called it civil association, anassociation of equals united in terms of theirsubscription to common principles of civility.Although Oakeshott’s conception of civilassociation bears a considerable resemblance to those of Hobbes and Kant, it is distinctive incrucial respects and represents a highly originalcontribution to political philosophy.

Oakeshott was one of the finest, though notthe most influential, of political philosophers ofthe twentieth century. He developed a distinctstyle of philosophising and an almost entirelynew language, the hallmark of a truly creativemind. He challenged the positivist view ofrationality, the collectivist and individualistconceptions of human beings, the functionalview of legitimacy, the recurrent confusionbetween power and authority and betweenindividuality and individualism, and offered apersuasive political theory base on the ideas ofindividuality, civility and conversational politics.

Lord Parekh

Ramsay Muir deservedly may be regardedas one of the forerunners of British socialscience. Like Laski and Cole, he inhabitedboth the world of letters (he producedsome 29 publications) and the world ofaffairs (he was briefly MP for Rochdale,and President of the Liberal Party). He wasa lecturer and professor of modern historyat both Manchester and Liverpooluniversities. His publications wereextensive, ranging from international andcommonwealth affairs to municipalgovernment in Liverpool; most significant,perhaps, was his How Britain is Governed(1930), arguably the first textbook on thesubject and which W. J. M. Mackenzie, S. E.Finer and other founders of British politicalscience read as undergraduates. Some of itsthemes (e.g. regional devolution and

reform of the Upper House) were tobecome unfashionable in the 1950s and 1960s, but now, once again, aremainstream concerns of the academic and public agenda.

He was also an educationist, helping topromote Liverpool to full university status andbeing a member of the Calcutta Commissionon the reform of Indian universities. As ajournalist, he became editor of The SaturdayWestminster for a while, and he contributed to public policy and political debate as aninfluential co-author of Britain’s IndustrialFuture – the famous Yellow Book (1928) – and as a stalwart of the Liberal Summer School.

As his exact contemporary, Sir Ernest Barker, said of him: “He was a professor inpolitics and a politician among professors. The mixture made his essence, as he, by thefire of his conviction, made it a living unity… a scholar prophet”.

Lord Smith of Clifton

John Mackintosh belonged to the classictradition of British political studies in thetradition of Bagehot, Bryce, Graham Wallasand Harold Laski. He was, at one and thesame time, a scholar, a prolific journalist,and a political activist and Member ofParliament. Above all, he was an educator.To all these activities he brought the samemixture of originality, lucidity, intellectualbreadth and rhetorical force. Not for himthe dead hand of academic jargon or the hermetic exclusiveness of the self-proclaimed professional. He had nopatience with the imitative faddism ofAmerican-style 1960s behaviourism or, for that matter, with the ponderousscholasticism of 1970s neo-Marxism. He didnot live to see the rise of public choicetheory in the 1980s and 1990s or theproliferating Rawls industry of the sameperiod, but it is a safe bet that he wouldhave been equally impatient with them.

Political Studies Association Hall of Fame

Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990)

Ramsay Muir (1872-1941)

John P. Mackintosh (1926-1978)

Chronology


became one of the most redundantdocuments in British political history as the party was removed from power for ageneration. Earlier, a majority is not amajority in Scotland, as electors vote fordevolution in a referendum, but not insufficient numbers. The Welsh decisivelyreject the idea.

1980 Michael Foot replacesCallaghan as Labour leader, defeatingDenis Healey as Labour swings leftwards.

The PSA launches its second journalPoilitics

1981 The Social Democratic Party isformed. Ten republican prisoners die onhunger strike in Northern Ireland. TonyBenn loses narrowly to Dennis Healey inthe Labour Party deputy leadership contest.

Rioting occurs in several British citiesduring the summer.

1982 Britain wins the Falklands War.

1983 The Conservatives win theGeneral Election with a crushing 144 seatmajority. Labour’s New Hope for Britainmanifesto is described as the longest suicidenote in history.

1984 The Provisional IRA bombs theGrand Hotel in Brighton, nearly killingmany of the Cabinet.

The notion that academics should writeonly for other academics was, for him, thenegation of what the study of politicsshould be about. In his eyes, politicalaction, political study, political educationand political comment were a seamlessweb. The John Mackintosh who filled theChamber of the House of Commons whenhe got up to speak was the same JohnMackintosh whose lectures enthralled thefirst-year Politics students at Edinburgh andwhose studies of the British Cabinet andwhat he called the ‘Westminster Model’achieved classic status.

Running through all his activities were apassionate concern for parliamentarydemocracy and a deep anxiety about its future.The first edition of his study of the Cabinetended with the haunting question: ‘Is thedecline of Parliament to be regretted?’ His ownanswer was an emphatic ‘yes’; and the keyboth to his politics and to his academic worklies in his search for solutions to the theoreticaland practical problems which that answerimplied. His tragic death at 49 left the searchunfinished. Nothing has happened since toinvalidate the concerns which led him toembark on it.

David Marquand

Bill MacKenzie was a big man in everysense, intellectually, physically and morally.Scotland was where he was born andraised, and his outlook on life reflected his roots. At Oxford he took a double first in Greats, and was appointed to oneof the earliest politics fellowships inOxford at Magdalen College. As a Scot, BillMacKenzie assumed that universities wereabout scholarship. On becoming a politicsdon, he sought the critical apparatus; itwas not in German, as was the case forclassics, but in the American PoliticalScience Review to which he began asubscription in 1932, virtually the onlyperson in England who did so. During the

war he was a temporary civil servant.When asked what he did during the war,he answered: “I was jobbed into theMinistry of Aircraft Production by Tizard to help hold down Bomber Harris, whowas mad”. There he learned that science is politics, quoting Mr. Dooley, that“politics ain’t bean bag”.

In 1949 MacKenzie went to the VictoriaUniversity of Manchester to establish aGovernment Department. With a nominal staff of ten, he hired more than two dozenpeople who ended up professors, including Tony Birch, Jean Blondel, David Donnison, John Erickson and Roger Williams. Scholarshipwas the reason for being at Manchester. Until the expansion of the university,Manchester had a faculty seminar of world classsocial scientists. Whoever spoke was treated tostraight questions in plain language drawing on vast knowledge and experience of life.Everyone shared the civic pride embodied in the saying ‘Manchester made me’, and WJMMmade Manchester. In 1966 he moved toGlasgow University. There he hired his last brightyoung men, Chris Hood and Stephen White.

Intellectually, Bill MacKenzie was a radical,going to the root of things. The starting pointwas usually an intellectual puzzle. The nextstep was a big leap, often from an unexpectedangle. His way of explaining what he foundwas novel as evident in his ‘translation’ of the Plowden Report from the Mandarin.MacKenzie was never a ‘true believer’ inpolitical science as science. Half a lifetime oftalking philosophy with people as different asScottish moralists, Ludwig Wittgenstein, JohnAustin and Freddie Ayer had left their mark.Nor was he an apologist for the powers thatbe. When asked him how Her Majesty’sGovernment could do something that seemedpalpably wrong, his answer was, “I can explainit, but I can’t justify it”. His epitaph waswritten in early Roman times: Humani nil a mealienum puto (Nothing that concerns man isalien to me).

Richard Rose

MEL CALMAN, THE TIMES, 6.9.81

W. J. M. MacKenzie (1909-1996)


Born November 11, 1920, in Abersychan,Monmouthshire, Wales. Educated at BalliolCollege, Oxford, from which he graduated in1941, he served in the Royal Artillery in WorldWar II and first entered Parliament in 1948. He could claim family roots in the Labourmovement: his father had been a miners’ union official, a member of Parliament, andParliamentary Private Secretary to the LabourPrime Minister Clement Attlee. Jenkins at onetime considered giving up politics for writing,but in the formation of the 1964 government

of Harold Wilson hejoined the Cabinetas Air Minister(1964-65); he thenbecame HomeSecretary (1965-67)and Chancellor ofthe Exchequer

(1967-70). In 1972 he resigned as from theLabour Shadow Cabinet in protest at its decisionto support a referendum on whether Britainshould remain in the Common Market. He re-entered the Shadow Cabinet in 1973 asShadow Home Secretary and became HomeSecretary after Labour’s victory in 1974.

In 1976 he resigned from the Cabinet andParliament to become president of theEuropean Commission and remained in thatpost until 1981. The issue of Europe remainedclose to Jenkins’s heart right through his politicalcareer and he had an extremely successfultenure as Commission President. In 1981 hemade an explosive return to national politics ashe and a number of other dissidents fromwithin the Labour Party formed the SocialDemocratic Party (SDP), of which he was briefly leader, in the attempt at provoking a

realignment of Britain’s two-party system.Although the SDP did not itself make thebreakthrough, the refashioning of the centreground of British politics which followed the SDP’s foundation enabled the Liberal Democrats to become a potent third force in British politics.

In 1987 Jenkins accepted a life peerage and moved from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, where he was a leader of Liberal Democrats. Most recently, the Labour Government invited him to Chair the Commission on Electoral Reform which reported in 1999, recommending the adoptionof a system of proportional representation forthe House of Commons.

Lord Jenkins is a prolific and acclaimed author. His most famous works include: Mr. Balfour’sPoodle (1954), The Labour Case (1959), Asquith (1964), Baldwin (1987), A Life at the Centre (autobiog.) (1991), Gladstone(Whitbread Biography Award) (1995), The Chancellors (1998).

Born April 3, 1925, London. Though a fiercecritic of the British class system, Tony Benncame from a moneyed and privileged family.Both of his grandfathers had been membersof Parliament, and his father, WilliamWedgwood Benn (1877-1960), had been aLiberal and then a Labour MP who in 1942entered the House of Lords as the 1stViscount Stansgate. The younger Benn joinedthe Labour Party in 1943, attended NewCollege, Oxford and was first elected toParliament in 1950. Anticipating thatinheritance of his father’s title wouldimmediately disqualify him from continuing

to serve in the House of Commons, heintroduced a personal bill to permit him torenounce the title. The bill was defeated; but,after his father’s death in 1960, he continuedthe struggle, and in 1963 the Peerage Actenabled peers to renounce their titles for theirlifetimes. Benn renounced his viscountcy (July

31, 1963) tobecome simplyTony Benn.

When Labourformed agovernment underHarold Wilson in

1964, Benn became Postmaster General andwas Minister of Technology from 1966 to1970. He also served as Secretary of State forIndustry, Minister for Posts andTelecommunications (1974-75) and Secretaryof State for Energy (1975-79). Benn lost hisparliamentary seat in the elections of 1983but returned to the Commons in a by-election in 1984.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Benn oftenfound himself at odds with the leaders of the party.

He set out his ideas in the seminal Arguments for Socialism, published in 1979.Benn remains to this day a passionatedefender of the sovereignty of Parliament,particularly in the face of increasingEuropeanisation of policy making and theoverbearing power of the Executive branch of Government. He has long stressed thatBritish parliamentary democracy needs to be reinvigorated and that the powers ofParliament need to be reasserted.

Benn’s publications include: Arguments forSocialism (1979): Arguments for Democracy(1981): Out of the Wilderness, Diaries 1963-1967 (1987): Office Without Power: Diaries

The Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom

Fiftieth Anniversary Award Winners

Award Sponsors: British Academy; Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust; Chelgate Ltd

The Rt Hon Lord Jenkins of Hillhead OM FBA

Lifetime Achievement in Politics

The Rt Hon Tony Benn MP

Outstanding Parliamentarian


1968-72 (1988): Conflicts of Interest: Diaries1977-80 (1990): A Future for Socialism(1991): The End of an Era, Diaries 1980-1990(1992): Years of Hope: Diaries, Letters andPapers 1940-1962 (1994): The Benn Diaries1940-1990 (1995).

He is soon to retire from the House ofCommons ‘to spend more time in politics’.

Born October 13, 1925, in Grantham.Margaret Thatcher was educated atSomerville College, Oxford (B.A., 1946; B.Sc.,1949; M.A., 1950), where she became thefirst female President of the Oxford UniversityConservative Association. She subsequentlyworked as a research chemist. Her marriageto Denis Thatcher, a prosperous businessman,also enabled her to read for the bar, and shespecialised in tax law. She first stood forParliament in 1950 but was unsuccessful,despite increasing the local Conservative voteby 50 percent. She finally entered Parliamentin 1959, as member for Finchley. She wasjoint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministryof Pensions and National Insurance (1961-64)and Secretary of State for Education and

Science, becomingonly the secondwoman ever tobecome aConservativecabinet minister.

Thatcher succeededEdward Heath as Conservative leader in 1975after the party’s loss of two general electionsin 1974. The Conservatives’ decisive victory inthe general elections of 1979 was thought

partly to have resulted from her denunciationof trade-union-induced chaos in the previouswinter’s strikes and led to her becoming thefirst (and so far only) female Prime Minister ofthe UK.

Abroad, Britain successfully recaptured the Falkland Islands following a 10-weekArgentinian occupation in 1982. The electorate’s memories of Thatcher’s decisive leadership during the Falklandsconflict helped give her a landslide victory in the general election of June 1983. This was foolowed by a further landslidesuccess in 1987.

Thatcher personified the newly energetic right wing of the Conservative Party. She advocated greater independence of the individual from the state, a radicalreduction of government intervention in theeconomy, reductions in public expenditure(enabling personal taxes to be cut) and atough monetary policy. Thatcher represented a clear and decisive break with what had come before her, changing the terrain ofBritish politics so profoundly that the effects of her 11 years in power remain evident in thenature of British politics to this day. This can beseen in a range of issues, such as New Labour’semphasis on personal enterprise and the Euro-scepticism of the Conservative Party.

Throughout her terms, Thatcher pursued the policies that earned her the appellation of ’Iron Lady’. As she herself once famouslycommented, “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous: you get knocked down by traffic from both sides”!She affirmed Britain’s strong commitment to NATO and Britain’s independent nucleardeterrent, a stance that proved popular with the electorate, given the Labour Party’srepudiation of Britain’s traditional nuclear and defence policies. A split in Conservative

ranks over her policy regarding Europeanintegration led to her resignation from partyleadership late in 1990, as her leadership waschallenged. In 1990 Thatcher received theOrder of Merit, and in 1992 she was made a Baroness.

The Fawcett Society has been in existence for over 130 years and is the UK’s leading

organisationcampaigning forequality betweenwomen and men in Britain today.Their vision is of a

society where women and men are equalpartners at home, at work and in public life. The Fawcett Society takes its name fromMillicent Garrett Fawcett (1847-1929), who wasthe first prominent, non-violent, campaigner onbehalf of British women. The roots of thepresent day organisation are therefore to befound in the suffrage movements of the latenineteenth and early twentieth century and theircampaign to grant women the right to vote.

Today the Fawcett Society is a growingorganisation with over 3000 members – men and women, 23 local groups around the country and over 800 individual activists. The Fawcett Society has always been a pro-active organisation, looking to push equal rightsonto the political agenda by drawing popularattention by vocally articulating salient issues ofthe time. It aims principally to do this by runningcampaigns, raising issues in the media andworking directly with politicians to achievepositive change for women. Principally this workfocuses on employment, including issues of lowand equal pay as well as the need for family

The Rt Hon Baroness Thatcherof Finchley LG OM FRS

Breaking The Mould

Fawcett Society

Setting the Political Agenda


friendly working practices for women and men, poverty and financial fecurity. True to itsroots, the Fawcett Society also attempts to place greater emphasis on the importance ofmore female participation (as voters and as representatives) in democracy.

After the 1997 General Election Clare Short MP,writing in The Times, credited Fawcett withsparking increased interest in women voters and Fawcett’s reports on women’s priorities(“Winning Women’s Votes; It’s not like picking a football team”) and (“Winning Women’sVotes in Europe”) received extremely widemedia coverage.

Greenpeace was originally founded in 1971 in Canadian British Columbia to oppose U.S.nuclear testing on Amchitka Island in Alaska,but has since developed into a high profileglobal organisation campaigning to preserveendangered species, to prevent environmentaldegradation and the general misuse of Earth’s resources. Greenpeace has successfullychampioned the effective use of direct action,on occasions with no more than a handful ofactivists being present, and standing up in the face of large corporations or governmentauthorities. Greenpeace remains, as it has always been, a loose-knit organisation. It has actively supported campaigns fromecologically minded individuals as well asundertaking campaigns seeking, among other things, to protect endangered whalesand seals from hunting, to aim to halt the dumping of toxic chemical andradioactive wastes at sea, and to end nuclear-weapons testing.

The primary tactic of Greenpeace has been such“direct, nonviolent actions” as steering smallinflatable craft between the harpoon guns ofwhalers and their prey and the plugging ofindustrial pipes discharging toxic wastes into theoceans and the atmosphere. Such dangerous

and dramatic actions brought Greenpeace widemedia exposure and helped mobilise publicopinion against environmentally destructivepractices.

Possibly the most famous incident involvingGreenpeace came on July 10, 1985, as theGreenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, which wasdue to sail to Moruroa Atoll to protest Frenchatmospheric nuclear-weapons tests, was sunkby two bomb explosions while berthed inAuckland Harbour, N.Z. Subsequent revelationsthat French intelligence agents had planted thebombs caused a major international scandal andled not only to resignations within the Frenchgovernment, but also to the rise of Greenpeaceinto a globally recognisable movement.

Charter 88 was formed, as the namesuggests, in 1988 in order to try and promptreform of the British political system. Charter 88 has no affiliation to a politicalparty. The original charter was published in1988 with 348 signatures, whereas by 2000over 80,000 people had added their names.

Charter 88 have vociferously campaigned forthe creation of a fair and modern democracy,with the principal aims being fundamentalreform of the structures of government. Their principal goals include the creation ofopen and accountable political institutions, a culture which respects and protects theindividual rights and liberties of citizens aswell as increased citizen participation in thedemocratic process. In policy terms, thesedemands have been shaped by calls for amore proportional voting system, the creationof a Bill of Rights, a Freedom of InformationAct and a decentralisation of power. While it is clear that Charter 88 have not seen all of their demands met, their demands aremuch nearer to reality now than they wereback in 1988.

Born August 30, 1917, Eltham, Kent.Denis Healey grew up in Bradford, Yorkshire,and had a brilliant academic career at

the University of Oxford.Immediately afterWorld War II hemoved into LabourParty politics with a job in the partysecretariat. He was

head of its international department for sevenyears before becoming a Member ofParliament in 1952. From the early 1950sHealey established his firmly pro-Europeancredentials, serving as the British delegate to the Consultative Assembly for the Councilof Europe (1952-54). He became Secretary of State for Defence (1964-70) and laterChancellor of the Exchequer when Labourreturned to power in 1974. He remained at the Treasury after James Callaghansucceeded Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in April 1976.

As Chancellor (1974-79), he presented arecord number of budgets in very tryingeconomic times, as the IMF dictated thatBritish economic policy take a moremonetarist turn. From 1980 to 1983 he was deputy leader of the Labour Party serving in the Shadow Cabinet as spokesmanon Treasury matters (1979-81) and foreignaffairs (1981-87). He was consistent in hisopposition to the party’s endorsement ofunilateral British nuclear disarmament andvehement in his opposition to the party’s driftleftwards. He retired from the party’sleadership circles in 1987. In 1992 he wascreated a life peer. His writing career includeda number of works on his two great interests(defence and foreign affairs) and hisautobiography (published in 1989) alsoreceived widespread popular acclaim. Hispublished works include: The Curtain Falls(1951), NATO and American Security (1959),





The Rt Hon Lord Healey ofRiddlesden CH MBE



The Race Against The H Bomb (1960),Beyond Nuclear Deterrence (1986) and TheTime of My Life (Autobiog.) (1986).

Neal Ascherson

Outstanding Political Journalist

Born on October 5, 1932 and educated atEton and Kings College, Cambridge. Beforebeginning his illustrious career in journalism,he served in the Royal Marines (1950-52).However, he quickly left the Armed Forces,joining the Manchester Guardian as Reporterand Leader Writer (1956-58). He then movedto the Scotsman, where he becameCommonwealth Correspondent (1959-60),before he joined the Observer in 1960. He held a number of positions in his 24 years there, including Central EuropeanCorrespondent, Eastern EuropeanCorrespondent and Foreign Writer. In 1985he became Associate Editor, before leavingfor the Independent on Sunday in 1990. He remained with the IOS for eight years as a columnist, before returning to the Observerin 1998.

He has received three honorary doctorates(Strathclyde, 1988; Edinburgh, 1990; OpenUniversity, 1991) and he has been therecipient of numerous awards and accolades

for his journalisticwork. These includeReporter of theYear in 1982,Journalist of theYear in 1987,Granada AwardsJames Cameron

Award in 1989 and the Golden Insignia Orderof Merit Award of Poland (1992). He has alsopublished a number of books, including TheKing Incorporated (1963), The Polish August(1981) and The Struggles for Poland (1987).

Analysis

Outstanding Broadcast Journalism

BBC Radio 4’s Analysis is a documentary serieswhich was first broadcast on April 10, 1970.Analysis asks experts to present programmes in their particular field, seeking to explain theimplications of policy issues and political,economic and social trends in Britain andabroad. Today the programmes are half an hourin length and there are up to 30 each yearcovering political, economic and social issuesreaching as many as 500,000 listeners weekly.

‘Analysis’ is remarkable because of thesignificance and importance of participants andthe depth of its coverage. The documentaryform is described by the present Editor, NicolaMeyrick as the ‘the journalism of ideas’ and theexploration of key political and social issues,including those which underpin policy decisions,is Analysis’ major contribution to broadeningthe scope of broadcast journalism.

It has received plaudits from such varied sources as the Daily Mail (‘the most incisive and challenging current affairs strand on radio or television’) and the Financial Times(“ever excellent”).

World in Action

Outstanding Broadcast Journalism

World in Action began in January 1963 andquickly introduced a style of journalism hithertounknown on British television. World in Actionset out to investigate controversial topics andissues that had previously received scantcoverage on national television. Some of itsmost controversial investigations looked at thetreatment of the elderly in hospitals, the effectsof smoking, the spread of venereal disease, thequestion of Royal taxes, the issue of theBirmingham Six, the Vietnam War, JohnPoulson, Jonathan Aitken and there was even a

famous debate with Mick Jagger about drugs.World in Action thrived on unveiling corruptionand highlighting underhand dealings. World inAction came to be seen as hard-hittinginvestigative journalism at its best.

World in Action also displayed an eye for asofter style of analysis. It created, for example, apiece of television which, perhaps unknowingly,provided the basis for the development of easilythe most ambitious, significant and influentialtelevision documentary project ever. In 1963Seven Up was intended to afford the viewer a

unique insight intohow the significantquestion of nurtureand upbringingimpacted on theshape of a sevenyear old child’sdestiny. This original

programme spawned follow-up programmes(the most recent of which was Forty Two Up,shown in July 1998) which provided afascinating insight into the development of‘normal people’.

The programme also spawned some of thefinest documentary producers and directors ofthe post-war period. These included, amongstothers, Tim Hewat, David Plowright, BrianLapping, Ray Fitzwalter, Gus MacDonald, DavidBoulton, Michael Apted, Claudia Milne, SteveMorrison and Dorothy Byrne.

The Rt Hon Sir Edward HeathKG MBE MP


Born 9 July 1916 in Broadstairs, Kent.Of modest origins, Heath was educated atOxford, where he was elected President of theUniversity Conservative Association in 1937. In 1938, as chairman of the Federation ofUniversity Conservative Associations andPresident of the Oxford Union, he activelyopposed the policy of appeasement toward Nazi Germany pursued by the ConservativePrime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He served


in the army during World War II, worked in theMinistry of Civil Aviation in 1946-47 and waseditor of the Church Times from January 1948to October 1949.

Heath was elected to Parliament as aConservative in the election of February 1950he was Chief Whip (1955-59) and Minister of

Labour in thegovernment ofHarold Macmillanfrom October 1959to July 1960, whenhe became LordPrivy Seal withForeign Office

responsibilities. In this capacity he representedBritain in negotiations for entry into theEuropean Economic Community. Fittingly,Heath eventually took the UK into theEuropean Community in 1973.

In October 1963 he became Secretary of Statefor Industry, Trade, and Regional Developmentand President of the Board of Trade. After theConservative defeat in October 1964, Heathwas elected leader in July 1965. His partysuffered a decisive defeat in the March 1966General Election but won an unexpectedvictory in the election of June 1970. As PrimeMinister, Heath had to face the crisis of violentconflict in Northern Ireland, over which heimposed direct British rule in 1972. Hoping towin a new mandate, Heath called for a GeneralElection on February 28, 1974, but wasnarrowly defeated by Wilson’s Labour party.After a further election defeat in 1974, Heathlost the party leadership to Margaret Thatcherin 1975.

Edward Heath has remained active within the Conservative Party and has, particularlyduring the 1990s, grown to be seen as theparty’s elder statesman. He remains apassionate advocate of closer Europeanintegration, largely in opposition to his party’sofficial line. His publications include: OneNation – A Tory Approach to Social Problems(1950), Old World, New Horizons (1970), OurCommunity (1977), The Course of My Life(autobiog.) (1999).

Mary Robinson

Outstanding Contribution toInternational Politics and Civil Society

Born on 21 May, 1944, in Ballina, CountyMayo. Mary Robinson is a barrister byprofession and was appointed Reid Professorof Criminal Law in Trinity College Dublinwhen she was 25 years of age. With herhusband, Nicholas (married 1970) shefounded the Irish Centre for European Law in 1988. Elected as a representative of theUniversity of Dublin, she was a member ofSeanad Eireann (Upper House of Parliament)from 1969-89.

Mary Robinson served as President of Irelandfrom 1990 until September 12 1997, actingas a potent symbol of the modernisation ofIrish society. She resigned eleven weeks shortof her full term in office in order to acceptthe position of United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights. In 1990 she became the first woman to becomePresident of Ireland, and, at that time, wasone of only three female Heads of State inthe world. Mrs Robinson served as a memberof the International Commission of Jurists(1987-1990) and of the Advisory Commissionof Inter-Rights (1984-1990).

Among the numerous international activitiesrelating to human rights in which sheparticipated, Mrs Robinson served as Special

Rapporteur to theInterregionalMeeting organisedin 1993 by theCouncil of Europeon the theme“Human rights atthe Dawn of the

21st Century”, as part of its preparation forthe 1993 Vienna World Conference onHuman Rights.

Mrs Robinson was the first Head of State tovisit Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocidethere. While in Rwanda she was briefed byagencies and the United Nations Human

Rights Monitors. She was also the first Head of State to visit the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,as well as the first Head of State to visitSomalia following the crisis there in 1992.Mrs Robinson also received the Special CAREHumanitarian Award in recognition of herefforts for Somalia.

Professor Bernard Crick

Lifetime Achievement in Political Studies

Bernard Crick was born on 16 December1929. Bernard Crick was educated at WhitgiftSchool and University College, London and

the LSE. His firstacademic post wasat Harvard, wherehe was a TeachingFellow from 1952-1954. He went onto be a VisitingFellow at Berkeley,

before returning to England to take up aposition as Assistant Lecturer then Lecturerand Senior Lecturer (1957-65) at the LSE andthen becoming Professor of Political Theoryand Institutions at Sheffield, a post he heldfor 6 years between 1965 and 1971. Hemoved back south to become Professor ofPolitics at Birkbeck College, London – wherehe remained until 1984, later becomingEmeritus Professor.

His academic achievements have beencomplemented by his activities in the widerworld of political studies. He has been literaryeditor of The Political Quarterly since 1993,following a 14 year period as joint editor. He was Chairman of the Political QuarterlyPublishing Company between 1980 and1993, as well as Joint Chairman of the BritishSouth Africa Commission (1991-1995). He was Honorary President of the PoliticsAssociation (1970-76) and is currently a VicePresident of the PSA (1995-). He has alsomade important contributions in the fields ofpolitical education and citizenship, recognised




in 1997 when he became Chair of theCommittee on Teaching Citizenship in EnglishSchools (1997-98). His other distinctionsinclude being a Honorary Member of theHansard Society (1993) and a Visiting Fellowof the Woodrow Wilson Centre (1995-96).

His publications include: The AmericanScience of Politics (1958), The Reform ofParliament (1964 & 1968), Essays on Reform(jointly, 1967), Political Theory and Practice(1972), George Orwell: A Life (1978 & 1992(Third Edition)), In Defence of Politics (1982),Socialism (1987), Essays on Politics andLiterature (1989), Political Thoughts andPolemics (1990), National Identity (1991),Essays on Citizenship (2000).

Professor Brian Barry FBA


Born in London on 7 August, 1936. BrianBarry was educated at Taunton’s School,Southampton University and Queen’s College

Oxford. He was aFellow at NuffieldCollege, Oxford,from 1966-69, andfrom 1972-1975.His time there wasbroken by a threeyear period (1969-

72) as Professor of Government at theUniversity of Essex. He moved to Chicago in1977 in order to take up the post of Professorof Political Science and Philosophy at theUniversity of Chicago before movingwestwards to California, taking the post ofProfessor of Philosophy at the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology (1982-86). Havingspent nine years in the USA, Professor Barryreturned to Europe in 1986 in order to takeup positions in the European UniversityInstitute in Florence (1986-87), andsubsequently the LSE. Presently he is AffiliateProfessor at the University of Columbia, NewYork. He has published widely on both Britishpolitics and the relationship between

democracy, power and justice and his workon social justice remains of primaryimportance in the field. His publicationsinclude Political Argument (1965),Sociologists, Economist and Democracy(1970), The Liberal Theory of Justice (1973),Democracy, Power and Justice (1989),Democracy and Power (1991), A Treatise onSocial Justice (Volumes 1 and 2) (1989 and1995) and The British Study of Politics in theTwentieth Century (with Jack Hayward andArchie Brown, eds.) (1999).

Professor Jean Blondel


Born in Toulon (France) in 1929. Jean Blondel graduated from the Institute d’EtudesPolitiques of Paris in 1953 and from StAntony’s College (Oxford) where he stayedfrom 1953 to 1955. He was a lecturer atKeele University from 1958 to 1963, went to Yale as an ACLS fellow in 1963-64 andbecame Professor of Government at theUniversity of Essex in 1964. He played a major role in founding the EuropeanConsortium for Political Research in 1969 and directed it for ten years. Having left Essexin 1984, he was appointed scholar of the Russell Sage Foundation in New York in 1984 before becoming Professor of PoliticalScience at the European University Institute in Florence from 1985 to 1994. He is nowexternal Professor at the European UniversityInstitute in Florence and visiting Professor atthe University of Siena.

Professor Blondel is a member of the RoyalSwedish Academy of Sciences and of theAcademia Europaea. His key contributions to the study of politics have undoubtedlybeen his lucid and enlightening work on the mechanics of Government and hispublications in this field include: Voters,Parties, and Leaders (first edition, 1963),Comparative Legislatures (1973), PoliticalParties (1978), World Leaders (1980), TheDiscipline of Politics (1981), The Organization

of Governments (1982), GovernmentMinisters in the Contemporary World(1985), Political Leadership (1987),Comparative Government (revised editions,1990, 1995), The Profession of GovernmentMinister in Western Europe, (with J.L.Thiebault) (1991), Governing Together(with F. Muller-Rommel) (1993).

Dr David Butler CBE FBA


Born in 1924, David Butler was educated at StPaul’s School and New College Oxford, afterwhich he spent two years as J. E. Procter

Visiting Fellow atPrinceton (1947-48). He returned toOxford, to NuffieldCollege, where heorganised theinaugural PSAconference in 1950

and became Research Fellow (1951-54), Fellow(1954-) and then Dean and Senior Tutor (1956-64). His career took a short diversion awayfrom academia, as he took up the post ofPersonal Assistant to the British Ambassador inWashington (1955-56). However, it was toNuffield College that he returned, where hecontinues to serve as Emeritus Fellow. He hasreceived three honorary doctorates (Paris,1978; Queens, Belfast, 1985; Essex, 1993) aswell as many accolades for his publishedworks. He has been co-author (mostly withDennis Kavanagh) of possibly the most famousseries of books published on contemporarypolitics over the last 40 years, as, with aselection of different authors, Butlercatalogued 13 British elections in his “BritishGeneral Election series”. Butler’s other majorpublications include: The British ElectoralSystem since 1918 (1963), The Study ofPolitical Behaviour (1958), Political Change inBritain (1969), Coalitions in British Politics(1978), Referendums Around the World (ed.,jointly) (1995), British Politics and EuropeanElections (with Martin Westlake) (1995).


Professor Stanley Hoffmann


Stanley Hoffmann is the Paul and CatherineButtenwieser University Professor at Harvard,where he has taught since 1955. He was the

Chairman ofHarvard’s Centerfor EuropeanStudies from itscreation in 1969 to1995. ProfessorHoffmann wasborn in Vienna in

1928. He lived and studied in France from1929 to 1955; he has taught at the Institutd’Etudes Politiques of Paris, from which hegraduated, and at the Ecole des HautesEtudes en Sciences Sociales. He bases hisapproach to international relations on anumber of key convictions. He stresses solidhistorical foundations and the importance ofstructural factors that limit the leeway ofstates in their manoeuvrings. In all his workhe emphasises that the study of internationalrelations and of foreign policy are thereforeinseparable. He has also illustrated thatdomestic factors play important roles inexplaining state actions and that, because ofthe continuing twin dangers of violence andchaos, IR is the domain where the greatestethical dilemmas exist. Among Hoffmann’spublications are Decline or Renewal? FranceSince the 30’s (1974), Primacy or WorldOrder: American Foreign Policy since the ColdWar (1978), Duties Beyond Borders (1981),Janus and Minerva (1986), The Ethics andPolitics of Humanitarian Intervention (1997)and World Disorder (1998) and he is co-author of The Mitterrand Experiment (1987);The New European Community (1991); andAfter the Cold War (1993). His Tanner lecturesof 1993, on the French nation andnationalism, were published in 1994.

Professor Richard Rose FBA


Born in 1933 in St Louis, Missouri, RichardRose was educated at Johns HopkinsUniversity, the LSE and Oxford. His firstacademic appointment was to the Universityof Manchester in 1966, where he lectured inGovernment. After five years he moved toScotland where he became Professor ofPolitics at Strathclyde – a position he hasretained to this day. In 1976 he becameProfessor of Public Policy at Strathclyde, aswell as Director of the Centre of Public Policy.Although he has remained loyal toStrathclyde for over 30 years, Professor Rosehas also been associated with many otherinstitutions. These include the Johns HopkinsUniversity, Baltimore, where he was HinkleyDistinguished Professor (1987), theWissenschaftszentrum in Berlin (1988-1990)and the Central European University in Prague(1992-1995).

He has supplemented his academic work withnumerous other professional activities. He hasacted as a consultant for the OECD (1980)

and the WorldBank (1991), aswell as acting asChair andconsultant on alarge number ofother committeesand steering groups

across the world. He has been a prolificproducer of books and articles, at the lastcount well over 400, on a wide and variedrange of subjects. Some of his most wellknown are: Politics in England (1965), CanGovernment go Bankrupt? (with Guy Peters)(1979), Do Parties make a Difference? (1980),The Loyalties of Voters: A Lifetime-LearningModel (with Ian McAllister) (1990), HowRussia Votes (with Stephen White and IanMcAllister, 1997), Democracy and ItsAlternatives: Understanding Post-CommunistSocieties (with William Mishler and ChristianHaerpfer, 1998).

Yes Minister

Outstanding Political Satire

Yes Minister was a hugely popular 1980sBritish comedy series illustrating the, at times hilarious, relationship between theincompetent Jim Hacker MP (Minister for the Department of Administrative Affairs), his Parliamentary Private Secretary (BernardWoolley) and a scheming Permanent PrivateSecretary (Sir Humphrey Appleby). The YesMinister series started airing on BBC2 in 1980 and consisted of 3 series, each with 7 episodes.

In 1984, almost two years after the last seriesof Yes Minister, the BBC aired the final episodeof Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey moved up the

civil servicehierarchy to becomeCabinet Secretarywhile Jim Hackerbecame what healways dreamt of:Prime Minister ofGreat Britain.

This started (in 1986) Yes Prime Minister. It ranover 2 series, each with 8 episodes. The YesMinister and Yes Prime Minister series wereadmired for showing what many perceived tobe uncanny realities of political life combinedwith a very British sense of ironic humour.Former British Prime Minister MargaretThatcher was impressed with the series andonce stated: “Its closely observed portrayal ofwhat goes on in the corridors of power hasgiven me hours of pure joy”!

Beyond the Fringe


Beyond the Fringe was written and performedby four young graduates, two from Cambridge(Jonathan Miller and Peter Cook) and twofrom Oxford (Alan Bennett and Dudley Moore)as a satirical revue at the Edinburgh Festival in1961. It went on to sell-out in London’s West




End and successfully transferred to Broadway.It kick-started the sixties satire boom and led tonumerous imitations including one, Behind theFridge, from two of the original castthemselves! Prior to Beyond the Fringe, with the exception of radio’s Goon Show(featuring Spike Milligan, Harry Secombe andPeter Sellers), British comedy rarely courted the outrageous. Beyond the Fringe broke this mould and paved the way for the likes of Monty Python to take this humour into the mainstream.

Even though Beyond the Fringe was made overthirty-five years ago, the anarchic brilliance ofthe late Peter Cook ensured that the Fringe’s

scripts remaincharacterised by anintellectualexuberance that isnot out of datetoday. AlongsideCook, DudleyMoore in particular

became famed for his piano playing, mixinghumour and music in a way previouslyunheard of. Cook disarmingly admitted thatfor him “there is only one depressing sideeffect of thinking about Beyond the Fringeagain – “I may have done some other thingsas good but I am sure none better!”

Spitting Image


Spitting Image remains one of the mostmemorable political satire programmes of thepost-war era, mixing as it did contemporarynews, the truth as it was perceived by Britonsup and down the land, and the antics of anumber of rubber puppets to create anenduring cocktail of humour and bitingcynicism. Spitting Image created niche foritself, ensuring that where the news andpolitical commentators attempted to bediplomatic about sensitive situations, SpittingImage displayed a forthrightness the likes ofwhich had never been seen in a TVprogramme before.

Spitting Image was created by Roger Law andPeter Fluck, two satirists who met at AngliaPolytechnic, and who went on to create the

Luck and Flawmodel-making teamwhich produced 3Dcaricatures fornewspapers andmagazines aroundthe world.Eventually they

moved into puppetry and animatronics,satirising public figures throughout thenineties. The world famous Spitting Imagepuppets were of personalities drawn from real-life who dominated the media, arts, sports andpolitics during the 1980s and early 90s andmany were auctioned off at handsome pricesin the summer of 2000. Some of the mostfamous included Arnold Schwarzenegger,Sylvester Stallone, OJ Simpson, Mick Jagger,Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and RoyHattersley, who came with a spittingmechanism. In the 18 series running over 14years few public figures avoided a scathingappraisal of their public personae. Reactionfrom the victims ranged from pride to pureoutrage and, for some, to be caricatured inlatex by a Spitting Image puppet was anindication that you had finally made it. AsConservative MP Kenneth Baker famously oncetold the House of Commons: ‘the importantthing is to be on Spitting Image – even if it isas a slug!’

Sir Robin Day

Outstanding Political Interviewer

Sir Robin Day was born in London on the 24October 1923 and grew to become one ofBritain’s most famous television and radiojournalists. His long career first took off in the1950s, and he will be remembered forshaking up the journalistic status quo andbringing in a new and less deferentialapproach to quizzing the nation’s leaders. He had a profound effect on the nature ofpolitical interviewing in the UK, opening thedoor for the more combative styles of

presenters such as Jeremy Paxman and John Humphreys.

Educated at Bembridge School and Oxford,he was President of the Oxford Union in1950. After being called to the Bar in 1952,he chose to change direction and move intojournalism. He first appeared on television in1955, becoming an ITN newscaster andpolitical correspondent. He was namedpersonality of the year by the Guild ofTelevision Producers in 1957. He achievedgreat scoops including an interview withPresident Nasser of Egypt, becoming the firstBritish reporter to talk to him after Suez.

Robin Day presented BBC Radio’s World at Onefrom 1979 to 1987 and Panorama from 1967-72. He also chaired Question Time, a show

that was originallyscheduled to runonly for a fewmonths, from 1979until 1989, winningthe BroadcastingPress Guild award in 1980 for his

contribution to its success. Active until hisdeath in 2000, Sir Robin hosted a lively series of ’elder statesman’ debates during the 1997General Election campaign on breakfasttelevision.

Alongside his journalistic skills he also sat on a number of high profile committees. Theseincluded the Phillimore Committee on the Lawof Contempt (1971-74). He also chaired theHansard Society for Parliamentary Government(1981-83). He received a number of awards forhis contribution to political journalism includingthe Richard Dimbleby Award from the Society ofFilm and TV Arts (1974) and the RTS JudgesAward for 30 years outstanding TV journalism(1985). His publications reflect his majorcontributions to political journalism and includeTelevision: A Personal Report (1961), The Casefor Televising Parliament (1963), Day by Day(1975), Grand Inquisitor (memoirs) (1989), ButWith Respect: Memorable Interviews (1993).

Citations: Dan Hough and Charlie Jeffery


T he study of politics has every rightto be as academic as any othersubject or discipline, whether in

philosophical, historical or scientificmode. We can say as sincerely as naturalscientists that one never knows whentheory can lead to useful practical results,or to a more rational understanding ofthe world we inhabit. But since the timeof Aristotle it is clear that the study canbe, I think should be and must be,something more as well. It can be atemperate critic of political arrangements– temperate not merely out of intellectualintegrity but also in order to be takenseriously. It should analyse the mechanicsof undemocratic regimes objectively, butit is fundamentally committed to freedom– if only for the preservation of freelearning and its publicity. And it can, ofcourse, offer some advice on thepracticality of policies, or more subtly onwhat questions to ask and how in surveysand opinion studies.

I have always been interested in the relationsbetween theory and practice, illustrated by mybook of essays with the title of Political Theoryand Practice in the 1970s and before that in the1960s the first edition of my In Defence ofPolitics (aimed at a general, not a professionalreadership and still in print) and my The Reformof Parliament. Although working on anhistorical volume on the interrelations of thefour historical nations of these islands, I tooktime out (as now for nearly twenty years anincomer in Scotland) to write in collaborationthe first draft of rules of procedure for theScottish Parliament. And I have given evidenceto Select Committees on Procedure inWestminster several times, to the old HoughtonCommittee on the public funding of parties andto the recent Wakeham commission on theHouse of Lords.

But in the late 1960s I became aware of aglaring gap in studies or proposals relating topolitical theory and practice. Like manydiscoveries it was simple and obvious, onceone thought of it. There was virtually nostudy of what effect upon different kinds ofschool education might have politicalparticipation or knowledge of what went onin schools in respect of anything one mightcall political or citizenship education. The firstis, only now, beginning to be studied and thesecond only assumed importance if onethought that something should be done. I wrote one essay in 1968 called “On theTeaching of Politics” which soon caught theattention of a scattered group of teacherswho, in those far off days before the nationalcurriculum, were able to give the occasionalcitizenship lesson. They wanted to cometogether somehow, even if only for mutualcomfort and support. Professor Harry Hanhamof Leeds, Derek Heater of the then BrightonPolytechnic, and I got together to found aPolitics Association. By one vote, as Iremember, at a well-attended inauguralmeeting, they voted for that name ratherthan “Citizenship Association”. The wrongchoice, I thought, but it did not worry me atthe time. Ten years later came the HansardSociety’s report the working party of whichI chaired, Political Education and PoliticalLiteracy. The latter term was invented byProfessor Graeme Moodie but stolen ordeveloped by Ian Lister and myself to meanthe skills, knowledge and values needed tohave a responsible effect in public affairs,whether national, local or international,whether in public or voluntary bodies.Kenneth Baker, MP was chairman of theHansard Society then and he and I waited onShirley Williams, then Minister of Education,and extracted a cautious blessing from her(“unfair to commit my successor too far soclose an election”). There was a rapidlygrowing movement in schools, actuallyencouraged by Keith Joseph, so carefully

balanced and cross-bench was bothmethodology and sponsorship; but after he left office, the movement lost impetus as the build-up towards a national curriculumbegan. When it came, Citizenship was notincluded, although one of the six excellentcross-curricular advisory papers was onCitizenship; fine on paper but in practicelacking teeth, ear-marked resources or space in a very crowded timetable, sogenerally ignored.

Citizenship in SchoolsIn the summer of 1997 David Blunkett called me out of retirement to chair anadvisory group on the teaching of citizenshipin schools. He had been an early member ofthe Politics Association but held a broaderview than political education alone, which I by then found wholly sensible, thatcitizenship meant active participation of allkinds at all levels. The three strands to thereport were: social and moral responsibility;community involvement and political literacy.We were unanimous that it should be a coresubject for secondary schools. This theGovernment accepted. It has been legislatedfor. My own Hobbesean and Burkean realismled me to steer my group away fromrecommending that participation in schooland community should be part of an order,but should remain simply advisory. I didn’tthink the Government would take that.Blunkett did, however, and it became part of the order. Perhaps a wider life-longlearning agenda is emerging. “We aim at no less than a change in the political cultureof this country both nationally and locally: for people to think of themselves as activecitizens, willing, able and equipped to havean influence in public life and with the critical capacities to weigh evidence beforespeaking and acting!”, said the CitizenshipPost-16 report.

Bernard Crick

Teaching and Learning Politics

The study of politics has been popular in schools, colleges and universities forseveral decades. In this section, Professor Bernard Crick outlines the thinkingbehind the introduction of citizenship classes in schools and university.

Citizenship


To find out what it is like to studypolitics a number of universitystudents described their

experiences to the PSA.

Tarig Halil, a third year undergraduate atthe University of Nottingham:

“Politics interested me before I came toUniversity. I actually started out on a jointhonours course but transferred to politicssingle honours in my second year because I wanted to study so many of the politicsmodules on offer. It is one of those subjectsthat combine theory and practice. Politicaltheory and political philosophy involvespeculation and ideas, but politics is alsopractical in that it provides insight intocurrent political events and life in general.

All the politics modules I’ve studied so farhave been interesting but I’ve particularlyenjoyed the History of Political Thought,Feminism, and Hammer and Sickle (a moduleon Soviet politics).

As to my career prospects? Well I’ve alreadymade some inquiries about entering thediplomatic side or journalism. I hope to beable to utilise my Sudanese familybackground, my knowledge of politics andthe analytical, research and presentation skillsI’ve developed while doing my degree.”

Elaine Ibbotson, a third yearundergraduate at Birmingham Universitystudying for degree in political science.

“In studying politics I have covered a widerange of topics, such as how political systems operate, theories of power andcontemporary issues such as Europeanintegration and terrorism.

A degree in Politics provides you with adeeper understanding of both current affairsand historical processes. Skills of research and formulating and defending argumentsare the key to studying politics and will be ofgreat use in any career. For me, politics haspaved the way for a career in law where I amsure my skills of argument will really be putto the test.”

Justin Crump, second year single honourspolitics undergraduate University ofDurham:

“I originally started my University career as anengineer but soon saw the light! Myspecialised interest in politics lies in the fieldof international relations because I enjoyfinding out out how the world ticks. My studyin this field helped me to gain a summer jobworking for the Conflict Studies ResearchCentre at Sandhurst, which was a very goodexperience. As for the other parts of mycourse, I have been studying topics as diverseas the American Constitution and the Utopianinfluences on Swift’s famous novel, Gulliver’sTravels. Currently, I am working on a projectcomparing George Orwell’s superb book1984 to Stalinist Russia.

The best part of studying politics is thedebate – everyone likes a good argument andthe experience can be quite eye opening,especially when the subject is close to home.Politics is all about the conflict of ideas andthis makes for a fascinating course. There isno such thing as a right answer – it alldepends upon your point of view. I have hada great time with this course so far. I hope itall continues for my last year.”

Chronology

1985 The Miners’ Strike ends infailure. The House of Lords is televised livefor the first time.

1987 Election victory number three forMargaret Thatcher. A rogue BBC exit pollearly on election night leads to talk of theend of Thatcherism. Conservative overallmajority? A mere 102.

1988 PSA News is launched undereditor John Benyon.

1989 The poll tax is introduced inScotland. The House of Commons istelevised. Nigel Lawson resigns asChancellor, after clashes with the PM’sspecial adviser over monetary policy,notably regarding the ERM.

1990 The introduction of the poll taxin England and Wales produces acommunity charge — in the TrafalgarSquare riots. Geoffrey Howe’s resignationleads to Heseltine’s challenge to Thatcher forthe Conservative leadership. After twoballots, John Major emerges as the newparty leader. All this is of courseovershadowed by the publication of a 40thAnniversary edition of PSA News.

Heseltine challenges Thatcher.

Why study politics?


‘D oes political theory still exist?’.This was the famous questionposed by Sir Isaiah Berlin in

1961. The grounds for doing so were that‘no commanding work of politicalphilosophy has appeared in the twentiethcentury’ and that political theory ran therisk of being ‘converted into an appliedscience’, the ‘business of experts’ whosesole task was to decide the best means toattain agreed and easily identified ends.

Berlin, however, always believed that therecould not be an age without politicalphilosophy, such was the irreducible pluralityof human values and ends. As there was not(and never had been) universal consent aboutthe purposes and goals of human action, thestudy of politics could not be reduced toempirical questions alone.

It took the publication of John Rawls’ ATheory of Justice in 1971 to provide decisiveproof that Berlin was correct and that politicalphilosophy in the grand manner was notextinct. Recognizing that what is thought justor unjust in a society is usually the subject ofprolonged dispute and disagreement, Rawlsnot only set out what he took to be theprinciples of justice but also set out anagenda that has arguably dominated politicaltheory ever since.

Here was the irony. At the very moment thatour politicians were prepared to abandon talkof social justice, political philosophers took upthis theme with a vengeance and did sobelieving that questions of politicalphilosophy not only impacted upon the widerstudy of politics in general but were also vital

to the proper undertaking of politics as apractical activity.

In short, the justification for politicalphilosophy is that politics cannot be divorcedfrom the normative questions that inform (orshould inform) the very goals that we, ascitizens and political actors, seek to realize. To ask, for example, if a particular policywhich seeks to redistribute wealth from thericher to the poorer sections of society is ajust (as opposed to a purely efficient) one isimmediately to confront a philosophicalquestion that is not capable of empiricalresolution and which will remain resolutelyphilosophical in character.

The change of political agenda has giventhese philosophical concerns even clearerrelevance to issues of contemporary politics,both at a domestic and international level.Jolted by the challenge of Thatcherism,political theory now displays an astonishingvibrancy and diversity within the Britishacademic community. Take, for example,Brian Barry’s Justice as Impartiality (1996), awork whose ambition is nothing less than tosubstantiate ‘a universally valid case in favourof liberal egalitarian principles’. To this hasbeen added the awareness that the daily


The study of politics involves examination of a number of sub-disciplines.Fashions and priorities may change, but all scholars of politics, whetherundergraduate students or distinguished professors, will draw upon several ofthese disciplines. Here, a number of eminent scholars outline the contributionthat their favoured sub-discipline makes to the overall study of politics.

The change of politicalagenda has given thesephilosophical concerns evenclearer relevance to issues ofcontemporary politics

reality of ethical and religious diversity inBritain demands further response frompolitical theorists. Feminist calls for whatAnne Phillips has termed ‘a politics ofpresence’ have to be placed by the side ofother attempts to accommodate differenceand recognition into the design of a conceptof citizenship appropriate to a pluralist andmulticultural society.

Here then is sufficient proof to indicate thatpolitical theory in Britain has not beenreduced, as Sir Isaiah Berlin feared, to an‘applied science’. It is still with us andcontinues to flourish in a world that remainsdivided over issues of substantive philosophicalsignificance. Britain, as elsewhere, finds itselffacing not only the more traditional politicalissues associated with redistribution, publicownership and individual rights, but also new and pressing concerns relating toconstitutional and welfare reform, nationalsovereignty and globalisation, gender andsexuality, the position of disadvantaged ethnicminorities and those that arise from mountingenvironmental damage. On all of theseimportant issues not only does political theoryhave something to say and contribute butwithout it their discussion will beimmeasurably impoverished.

Prof Jeremy Jennings

Political Theory


C hanges have undoubtedly occurredin the position of women in thepolitical studies profession and in

research about women – but there is stilla long way to go. Gender politics researchin the 1990s continued its excavations ofwomen’s political history; its analyses ofcontemporary women’s movements; thecollection of data on political behaviourand the re-theorising of politics.Trenchant critiques have now been madeof both the approach and subject matterof much of discipline. In the 1990sfeminist political scientists, perhaps inkeeping with the renewed emphasis oninstitutions in the discipline moregenerally, also turned their attention tothe analysis of institutions (widelydefined) as gendered structures withgendered norms and rules. New studieshave looked at political parties,legislatures and the state in general.

The discipline itself has become morereceptive to research on women as alegitimate part of its enterprise. Recently newjournals such as the International FeministJournal of Politics have been launched and alarge number of publishers now have livelywomen and politics lists. Political theory andInternational Relations (IR) have both beenparticularly open to feminist critiques.Feminist political theorists are beginning tofashion a feminist political theory and, in IR,feminist ideas have taken their place withinthe critical approaches that are seen aslegitimate challengers to realist models.

Chronology

1991 The Political StudiesAssociation launches its GraduateNetwork, attracting the brightest wannabesin the profession.

1992 The Conservatives win a fourthterm with a majority of 21. Neil Kinnockquits as Labour leader and is replaced byJohn Smith. Britain is forced to leave theERM.

1993 Elizabeth Meehan becomes thefirst woman Chair of the Political StudiesAssociation.

1994 Tony Blair becomes Labourleader after the death of John Smith. NolanCommission on standards in public life isestablished.

1995 Blair introduces a new,improved Clause 4 to Labour’sconstitution.

1997 A landslide as ‘New’ Labourwins an overall majority of 197, after acarefully managed campaign.

The discipline itself hasbecome more receptive toresearch on women as alegitimate part of itsenterprise.

Significant challenges remain. There is stillresistance from much of the profession to thenotion that the mainstream should begendered both in terms of research and thecurriculum. The majority of work published inthe mainstream political studies journals oftenmakes no reference to the gendered politicalstudies literature even where it is directlyrelevant. In terms of the curriculum, whilemany departments offer some kind of womenand politics course, many staff are unwilling toaccept the idea that the compulsory buildingblocks of a politics degree should havegendered analyses at their core.

This situation may change now that morewomen are being appointed to seniorpositions in universities. But there are still notenough younger women coming in at thebottom and progressing upwards. The UnitedKingdom figures are low in comparison to theUnited States where about a third of ‘newhires’ in political science are women. Too fewwomen in the UK are making the transitionfrom undergraduate to postgraduate and thenon to become an academic. First is it thenature of the discipline in terms of its subjectmatter and approach? Second is it due to alack of encouragement given to femalestudents by predominantly male academics

“I see no sleaze my dearest Hamilton.”

PETER BROOKES, THE TIMES, 3.10.96

The (changing) Place ofWomen and Research AboutWomen in the Political StudiesProfession.


who, without thinking, mentor thosefashioned in their own image? Or third is it arational decision about low salaries and poorcareer prospects?

Therefore while there have been significantadvances, women in politics have not yetreached the ‘critical mass’ needed to achievethe kinds of changes seen in other disciplinessuch as English Literature or even Sociology.The task ahead of women and politics, havingestablished itself as a legitimate area of studyat the end of the first 50 years of the PSA, isto put gender in the mainstream. Let’s hopethat it doesn’t take the next 50 years.

Dr Georgina Waylen

D r Henry Durant, the man whointroduced opinion polling toBritain, once described it as “the

stupidest of professions” – for who else isstupid enough to publish a prediction onThursday morning that may be provedwrong on Thursday evening?

Political opinion polling in Britain pre-dates thebirth of the Political Studies Association – butonly just. Durant ran the first polls for BritishGallup (originally the British Institute of PublicOpinion) in 1937, just two years after itsAmerican forefather was founded. Gallupbegan in both the USA and in Britain as ameans of journalism, but it quickly expanded its horizons. Durant explained:

People constantly asked us to put questions onour regular surveys, and at the beginning I was stupid enough to regard these as anuisance: then I suddenly realised that this

was a beautiful way of making money. It grewand soon had its own omnibus survey: todayit’s one of the things that researchers live off.

Even in the early days the questions covered awide-ranging subject matter, but the directlypolitical questions quickly won their place. By October 1938, they had begun testing thepublic’s satisfaction with the Prime Minister(57% were satisfied with Neville Chamberlain,43% dissatisfied), and the first national votingintention question was introduced in February1939 (when 64% answered that they wouldvote for the Government “if there were ageneral election tomorrow”). Meanwhile, just as George Gallup and his rivals hadestablished their position in the USA bysuccessful prediction of the 1936 Presidentialelection, so Durant’s British Gallup polls movedinto election polling, at the behest of the NewsChronicle, and secured a firm foothold bycorrectly challenging the received wisdom. An early triumph was to forecast EdithSummerskill’s victory at the West Fulham by-election in 1938. Even more unexpected, ofcourse, was Churchill’s defeat at the 1945General Election.

Gallup showed us that Attlee was going to winwith the Labour Party. Nobody believed us,including all the News Chronicle people.

But in the event Gallup was right, in factslightly underestimating Labour’s lead. Despite the occasional hiccup, the pollsgenerally since then have a good record ofelection ‘prediction’: only twice in 15 electionshas the average error of the “poll of polls” inmeasuring the parties’ vote shares exceeded2%, or the error on the Conservative-Labourlead exceeded 6%.

In 1945, Gallup was the only player in the field,but rivals soon began to move in, and many –

ICM, MORI, NOP and Harris – are nowhousehold names. All produce regular pollscommissioned by and published in the media.Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, too,have become used to more or less regularpolling for their own media, both by theLondon-based pollsters and by smaller localcompanies equally well-known within theirown markets.

Meanwhile, the political parties finally woke up to the potential of polling for their ownpurposes (finding out in private what theycould do to win the next election instead ofreading in the newspaper how certain it wasthey were going to lose it). Both main partieswere commissioning research by the end of the fifties, and all the main polling firms haveworked for one or other at some period sincethen – or, indeed, for both, though not ofcourse at the same time! Academia, too, began to use polling techniques to generatedata for political research, especially the BritishElection Study under Butler and Stokes andtheir successors.

Focus GroupsOne technique which has remained mainlyconfined to private polling, but which over thelast few years has come to the fore, is the useof focus groups. This is not because they marka sea change with the methods of the past:focus groups have a long history in social andmarket research. What has moved them intothe headlines is the use of focus groups by TonyBlair to explore voter attitudes and test keymessages in the period leading up to the 1997election – something which has continued inGovernment. In The Unfinished Revolution,Blair’s polling advisor, Philip Gould, talks aboutthe use of focus groups:

I nearly always learn something new andsurprising. People do not think in traditional


Electorial BehaviourPolitical Polling in Britain


ways or conform to conventional prejudice. In a group it is possible to test out the strengthand depth of feeling about an issue, which canbe more difficult, although not impossible, in aconventional poll.

On the other hand:

Not all groups work as they should. On oneoccasion, two strangers seduced each other asthe group was going on. Everyone pretendednot to notice.

Most published polling, though, remains basedon the quantitative survey. Gallup’s first pollswere postal surveys, but these were quicklysupplanted by the familiar pen and clipboardfor face-to-face interviews. Telephone pollingcame later – indeed, it was not until 1997 thatthe majority of the main monthly newspaperpolling series switched to telephone interviews– and the nineties also saw the increasingreplacement of the clipboard with ComputerAssisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) for face-to-face interviews. At the same time,unfortunately, has come the explosion of themeaningless but ubiquitous self-selecting polls,at first by mail-in coupons, then newspaperphone-in polls (far too easily and too frequentlymisreported as “a telephone poll”), and nowincreasingly similar polls on the Internet, oftengiven spurious credibility by association withotherwise reputable sites or publications.

MisreportingBut the misreporting or simplification of ourdata is a cross we always have to bear. Somesimplifications seem to catch the imagination ofthe press, and stick – for example, as ideotypesof the key swing voters, “Essex Man”,“Mondeo Man” or “Worcester Woman”. Press reports this year have brought us“Swindon Man” – apparently some marketresearchers have come to the conclusion that

Swindon is ideally representative of Britain as awhole, and have descended upon this almostblameless town in droves. The story is all tooreminiscent of “Magic Town”, surely the onlyHollywood feature film about political researchmethodology: James Stewart, the pollster-hero,discovers a town that is the perfect microcosmof the USA, bases all his polls there (withconsequent savings in time and cost), andeventually learns a harsh lesson about panel-conditioning effects.

But in the end, it is a simple business, really –all we have to do is ask the right questions, tothe right people, and add up the figurescorrectly; and if we can get all the figureswithin 1%, as Henry Durant did in that first pollat West Fulham, we may even get some creditfor it. But even Dr Durant called that“beginner’s luck”.

Roger Mortimore and Simon Atkinson, MORI

No subject in the social sciences existsseparately from the real world andthe academic study of international

relations in Britain is no exception to thisparticular rule. Born as a liberal project inthe aftermath of World War One, with theonset of the Cold War its pre-occupationschanged dramatically as the search forpeace after the carnage of the trenchesgave way after 1947 to an almost rigidobsession with the East-West conflict anddeterrence under conditions of bipolarity.Ralph Miliband once observed that ‘IR’ wasa conservative subject whose high-priestsprovided little more than a gloss on theCold War. There was some truth to this.However, it was not the whole truth and

Chronology

1998 Devolved parliament forScotland established (74% in favour in the 1997 referendum); devolved assembly created for Wales (50.3% of voters in favour).

1999 A devolved assembly isestablished in Northern Ireland followingyes votes north and south of the border inthe 1998 referendum on the Good FridayAgreement.

Professor Rod Rhodes is elected Chair of the Political Studies Association, topopular acclaim.

PSA launches its third journal The BritishJournal of Politics and InternationalRelations. The PSA’s website(www.psa.ac.uk) is voted the Best in theWorld by the Lycos search engine.

2000 The PSA celebrates its fiftiethanniversary.

Politics Departments savour QualityAssurance inspections.

Dozens of hostages held.

PETER BROOKES, THE TIMES, 24.4.97

International Relations inBritain – after the ‘fall’.


not all of the subject’s practitioners werethe hand-maidens of the powerful. Norwere they all hard-nosed realists with nointerest in change (as some have latercharged) or naive positivists with littleunderstanding of their own normativebiases. In fact, there were many whochallenged the logic of containment, andin the heady days of the 1980s played avital part in that great debate about therole of nuclear weapons and the positionEurope could, or should, occupy in a worldstill dominated by the superpowers.

But even the critics got one thing wrong: theCold War itself whose passing in 1989 leftmany a self-confident analyst with theoreticalegg on his or her face. Nor could they haveanticipated the impact which the end of theCold War would then have on the subject ofinternational relations. Certainly, someoneentering the profession in the 1980s would notrecognize, and may be not even feel at homein, the ‘discipline’ (if discipline it can now becalled) in 2000.

Big changes therefore have taken place overthe last ten years making international relationsin Britain an intellectually more diverse and less rigidly defined subject than it was before.There have of course been casualties along theway. Strategic studies, for instance, has goneinto steep decline in the post-Cold War era.Interest in the history of war has waned too.And there has been a marked turn away fromdiplomacy and diplomatic history. The state as aspecific point of academic interest has not donevery well either, and one of the most repeatedmantras of the 1990s was that we now neededto move beyond the state and the oldtraditional way of thinking about internationalrelations as a subject solely concerned withwhat went on between states under conditions

of anarchy. In this way, old definitions of whatdefined security tended to be superseded,accompanied by a surge of interest in thosesources of insecurity – poverty, environmentaldegradation, migration, refugee movement andthe like – that had very little to do with whatstates did in the international system.

American AccentsBut if there have been losers, there werewinners too. Theory and an interest in theory (feminism, post-modernism andconstructivism in particular) has undoubtedlybeen one. Globalization as the neworganizing idea of international relations has certainly been another. Cold Warinternational history has also experiencedsomething of a renaissance. So too hasEuropean integration. For the first half of the1990’s there was a great flood of interest inthe United Nations. This rapidly recededhowever as events in the former Yugoslaviarevealed the limits of the organization’scapabilities. Asia-Pacific has also had its upsand downs. The regional destination ofchoice after the collapse of the USSR, sincethe great financial crisis of 1997 thereappears to be rather less interest in the areathan there was in those intoxicating dayswhen nearly everybody felt we were headingfor a new Pacific Century – one that wouldchallenge both European and American pre-eminence. How strange that particularforecast now sounds!

This leads us, inevitably, to the United States. It too has suffered from certain misconceptions,the most embarrassing one of all being theonce popular notion – touted with great skill by the English historian Paul Kennedy – that theUnited States was in (relative) decline. In Britainthere are few students writing on US foreignpolicy. It is an unfortunate lacuna, not just

because the rebirth of American power is a challenge in its own right, but because the majority of voices in the field ofinternational relations still happen to speakwith American accents.

This is where British international relations has a vital part to play, not as enemy, or even asAmerica’s interlocutor in some cosy ‘specialrelationship’, but as an alternative point ofreference. In many ways it already plays thatrole: first through its many journals like theReview of International Studies, Millennium,Survival and International Affairs, then throughits own publications including the massivelysuccessful Cambridge Series in InternationalRelations, and finally through regularappearances at key international conferences inboth the US and western Europe. Significantly,the largest overseas contingent attending theInternational Studies Association in the US onan annual basis, hails from the UK.

So what is the current state of play? Anarchic?To some extent. Lacking a central question?Almost certainly. Fragmented? Very much so.Yet there is much more life to the subject nowthan there was before, much less deference to the great and good, and much more we can legitimately call the subject then we couldback in 1989 or before. For some of us olderhands at least the last few years have beenextraordinarily exciting, not to mentionunnerving. The subject has never been as openor vibrant. British IR is at least one field thatappears to have benefited from the collapse ofold certainties, even if its practitioners backthen were unaware that the old order wasabout to go under. Whether the newgeneration prove to be any more prescientremains to be seen.

Professor Michael Cox



I nteraction between researchers andpractitioners had been one of theaspirations of the founding generation

of the PSA. Lord (Sandie) Lindsay forexample saw the creation of NuffieldCollege at Oxford in the 1930s as helpingto deepen practitioner-researcher link. As Jack Hayward recalls, Lindsay hoped toestablish a ‘meeting of minds betweensocial scientists and men of action – central and local government officials,politicians and businessmen’ which ‘couldrevolutionise the study of contemporarysociety by the effect it would have inmaking the theorist and practical manaccustomed to helping and consulting one another’.

The experience of many university lecturersduring World War II in Whitehall and otherbranches of public administration had also laid strong foundations. As Norman Chester,the inaugural PSA Chairman, put it: ‘wartimeexperience had shown the importance of thesocial sciences in public affairs’. Chester’s viewwas reinforced by the findings of a Committeeunder Sir John Clapham on the Provision forSocial and Economic Research, which found in1946 that: ‘Political science, the study of theinstitutions of government and publicadministration, is a subject in which sufficientwork has been done to demonstrate its utilityand importance’.

That ‘utility and importance’ was, howeveronly sporadically mobilised in subsequentyears. Only in a small number of fields didpolitical scientists develop regular and fruitfulworking relationships with practitioners.Election studies were one, where a succession

of key figures like Bob Mackenzie, David Butlerand Anthony King made a genuine impact by bringing scholarship to general electionnights. A close relationship also developedbetween major centres for research on localgovernment in Birmingham, Newcastle,Strathclyde and, later, De Montfort andpractitioners in local government. Someindividual specialists in international relationsand European politics – e.g. MalcolmAnderson, Lawrence Freedman, Willie Patersonand Helen Wallace – became importantinterlocutors in foreign policy-making.

Otherwise, though, enduring interactionbetween scholarship and practice was rare,with Norman Chester gloomily complaining in 1975 that ‘our professional services are not greatly in demand and generally speakingare not recognised as giving us claims to speak with special authority on the subjects we teach’.

The 1980’s: a turning pointThe radical reforms in policy direction andpublic administration launched by the Thatchergovernments opened up new political territoryfor practitioners to chart and negotiate.Demand for research on the practicalimplications of policy change grew in turn,though was not fully released during aThatcher era notable for governmentscepticism about social science. Since then,though, government has been rather moreopen to cooperation and consultation withsocial scientists.

One factor in this new relationship has beenthe funding policies of the Economic andSocial Research Council (ESRC). ESRC fundssocial science research to the value of over £45million annually. And it has increasinglyrequired applicants to justify their research in

terms of ‘the needs of users and beneficiaries’by showing how it contributes tocompetitiveness, more effective public services and improved quality of life.

Though this user focus has not been receiveduncritically, with some seeing limits toacademic freedom, it is now a central elementof much politics research. Research projects,whether funded by ESRC or not, now routinelyhave ‘user advisory groups’, are carried out inregular consultation with relevant bodies in the public and private sectors, and take carepresent their findings in ways attuned to apractitioner environment. Rowntree’s Briefingsare the market leaders in profiling results inthis way.

The move towards this kind of practitioner-oriented research has accelerated during the1990s and into the new century. In partresponding to ideas generated by politicsacademics, ESRC has launched a range ofresearch programmes centred on key areas of political studies. The ESRC’s WhitehallProgramme ran, for example, from 1994-1999with the aim of describing, explaining andcreating a better understanding of changes inBritish government. Like a number of similarinitiatives, its aim was to bridge scholarshipand practice by – as its Director, Rod Rhodes,put it – ‘appreciating one another’s problemsand learning one another’s languages’.

Other ESRC Programmes currently under wayin the field of political studies include OneEurope or Several? The Dynamics of Changeacross Europe, led by Helen Wallace,Democracy and Participation (Paul Whiteley),and the Future of Governance (Ed Page). One Europe or Several? explores parallelprocesses of integration and fragmentation in contemporary Europe; Democracy and

User Relevance and Political StudiesProfessor Charlie Jeffery

The relationship between political studies research and the practice of politics in the UK is now a close and positive one. Indeed, a new language of ‘policyrelevance’, ‘research users’ and ‘user engagement’ has grown up to describe the interactions which now exist between politics research and the policypractitioners who ‘use’ it.

Politics Research and Policy Relevance


Participation the effectiveness of democraticinstitutions in the UK and the ways they need tochange to meet the needs of a rapidly changingsociety in the 21st century; and Future ofGovernance the ways governments adapt ideasand practices developed elsewhere to addresstheir domestic policy problems. Each runs over20 different research projects and an extensiveprogramme of events and publications designedto ‘reach in’ to user communities.

A final area in which politics academics havedone much to bridge scholarship and practiceis in the field of constitutional reform. The Blairgovernment elected in 1997 came to powercommitted to the most radical constitutionalreform programme for centuries. This is ofcourse a field which strikes right at the heartof the discipline of political studies: theinstitutional arrangements of government, and the relationship of state to society. It hasopened up enormous opportunities for politicalstudies to shape and influence public affairs.Political scientists like Alice Brown in Scotland,Kevin Morgan in Wales and Elizabeth Meehanin Northern Ireland were central figures inshaping debates about the purpose andstructure of devolution. Patrick Dunleavy, HelenMargetts and others delivered much of thethinking which lies behind new electoralsystems in Scotland and Wales and theongoing debate about electoral reform for theHouse of Commons.

Countless others have fed into the work of keythink-tanks on constitutional matters like theConstitution Unit, Democratic Dialogue andthe Institute for Public Policy Research. Parallelresearch programmes run by ESRC, theLeverhulme Trust and the RowntreeFoundation have ensured the momentum hasbeen maintained. The net result has been adense and deepening engagement of politicsresearch with a policy practitioner communityforced to negotiate virgin territory by the sheerscope of the reform programme.

The late Norman Chester might, in otherwords, be surprised by how much ‘ourprofessional services’ are now ‘in demand’ and how much they are ‘recognised as givingus special claim to speak with special authorityon the subjects we teach’ and research about.

Some current programmes are now brieflyexplored.

T he ESRC’s Whitehall Programme ranfrom 1994 to 1999. It aimed todescribe, to explain and to create a

better understanding of both recent andlong-term changes in British government.It also compared these changes with those in other EU member states andother states with a ‘Westminster’ system of government. It had six strands:developing theories about the newgovernance; analysing the hollowing outof the state; providing an anthology ofwhat is going on, especially up-to-dateaccounts of the impact of change oncentral departments and on the changingroles and relationships of ministers andcivil servants; analysing changing patternsof accountability and of regulation; andanalysing new forms of service delivery.

Although the Programme responded to theESRC’s call for policy relevant research andinvolved users in their work, it was also anexample of ‘curiosity research’ – that is, itreflected academic interests and concerns. The ESRC and the Cabinet Office agreed that its primary objective was not to providepolicy relevant advice. In practice, it combinedbasic research on the evolution of Britishgovernment with policy relevant research onpresent-day practice in Britain and Europe.The Westminster model and the new public

management (NPM) are familiar stories aboutBritish government. Governance or ‘steering by networks’, challenges both. It also capturesthe shift from line bureaucracies to networksand fragmented service delivery. It has becomeone of the defining stories about Britishgovernment at the turn of the century. The Whitehall Programme provides a languagefor describing a world in which networks rivalmarkets and bureaucracy as the apt way ofdelivering services.

The phrase ‘interdisciplinary work’ oftencommands obeisance, but little else. The Whitehall Programme had 5 historiansworking on it and they showed an exemplarywillingness to debate with their politicalscience and put flesh on the bare bones that is the rhetoric of interdisciplinary work. The Programme had three comparativeprojects and wide-ranging international linkswith, for example, equivalent research projectsin Denmark and Australia.

The Whitehall Programme research wascommunicated via seminars at the LSE, chaired by Ben Pimlott, Sir Robin Butler and Sir Richard Wilson and via a large range ofpublications.

Professor Rod Rhodes

G overnments increasingly seek toadapt ideas and practicesdeveloped outside their

jurisdictions to address domestic publicpolicy problems. This process of policylearning takes a variety of forms. In somecases it is voluntary, as politicians andgovernment officials look to theexperience of other countries foralternative ways of dealing with problems;

User Relevance

The ESRC’s WhitehallProgramme

The Future GovernanceProgramme


in other cases it results from outsideincentives, such as through internationalaid packages. Policies may also be adopted almost compulsorily, such as with international treaty obligations. The agents of transfer might beinternational organisations, think tanks,firms, academics, politicians or governmentofficials. This programme examines howlessons can be drawn, and have beendrawn, from cross-national experience.

The central ambition of the progranmme is to increase the contribution of comparativeanalysis to contemporary academic and politicaldebates. This contribution will extend acrossmany disciplines (among the researchers on the programme are economists, geographers,accountants, political scientists, anthropologists,historians and health and social policyspecialists), policy areas, and contexts.Comparisons do not focus exclusively on Europeor the developed world, but also include lessdeveloped nations.

The programme brings together academicsand practitioners to examine the potentialcontribution of cross-national experience to developing public policy initiatives. Early meetings organised under this include the use of social experiments in policy making,how to improve the legal implementation of EU legislation, financial regulation, social welfare reform, the care of mentallydisordered offenders, child care and the futureof cities. The Programme is also pursuingcollaborative ventures with organisations suchas the National Audit Office, European PolicyForum and the European Consortium forPolitical Research.

Overall the programme’s 30 projects will allow us to answer key questions about thecircumstances under which cross-nationallessons are sought, the conditions underwhich policies can be transferred, how the

process of transfer works and the political,social, economic and cultural variables thataffect how lessons drawn from experiences in one jurisdiction can be applied in another.

Professor Ed Page

T he ESRC’s Democracy andParticipation Programme addressesa number of key concerns about

the current state of British democracy and participation. The five core questions that the Programme seeks to explore and answer are: Is there a crisis ofparticipation and democratic legitimacy inBritain? Why do some people participatewhen others do not? What are the effectsof a changing environment, particularlyconstitutional and political changes, onparticipation? What are the links betweenparticipation, governance and democraticaccountability? What participation istaking place?

The central objective of the 21 projects under the programme is to examineparticipation in Britain. Participation is oftenseen rather narrowly in terms of citizensvoting in elections. Taking a broad view,participation can be defined as unpaidvoluntary activity undertaken by citizens thatinfluences government, policy-making anddemocratic accountability. This definitionencompasses:participation in elections, partiesand interest groups; unorthodox activities suchas road protests and campaigns over planningenquiries; voluntary activities such asparticipation in parent-teacher associations,community groups, works councils andcultural organisations, which develop socialcapital and influence policy-making and thedelivery of services.

It excludes participation linked to financialrewards, such as labour force participation, since it is unpaid voluntary activity thatunderpins democracy.

Traditional notions of democraticrepresentation in Britain are under somestrain. Some of the current challenges facing British democracy are: the dominanceof the executive over the legislature; the rise of global and regional sources of power; the marginalisation of elected localgovernment; and the decline in traditionalinstitutions of democratic representation such as political parties.

A major theme of the Programme will be to examine the effectiveness of theinstitutions that support democracy, and to evaluate the forms of democraticrepresentation appropriate for the rapidlychanging society of the 21st century.

The reasons for the timeliness of thisProgramme are clear. The Government hasembarked on a very ambitious Programme of constitutional reforms. By the time theProgramme is completed it should provide:New conceptual thinking about the nature of democracy and representation in atechnologically advanced and rapidlychanging society; More powerful theoreticalexplanations about why some people areinvolved in voluntary activity when others arenot; Evaluations of the effectiveness of someof the key constitutional reforms such as thenew assemblies and changes in local andregional government; Answers to thequestion of whether there is a crisis ofdemocracy and participation in Britain;Evaluations of the increasing role of thevoluntary sector in policy-making;Comprehensive information about the scopeand range of voluntary activities in Britain.

Professor Paul Whiteley

ESRC Democracy andParticipation Programme

34

Contemporary Politics Editor: Kate Hudson, South Bank University, UK 2000, Volume 6 (4 issues) ISSN 1356-9775

Journal of Political Ideologies Editor: Michael Freeden, Mansfield College, Oxford, UK2000, Volume 5 (3 issues) ISSN 1356-9317

International Feminist Journal of PoliticsEditors: Jan Jindy Pettman, Australian National University,Australia; Kathleen B. Jones, San Diego State University, USA and Gillian Youngs, University of Leicester, UK 2000, Volume 2 (3 issues) ISSN 1461-6742

Review of International Political Economy Editors: Ash Amin, Durham University, UK; Helen Milner,Columbia University, USA; Ronen Palen, Sussex University, UKand Jan Nederveen Pieterse, ISS, The Hague, The Netherlands 2000, Volume 7 (4 issues) ISSN 0969-2290

Politics Journals From

Leading journals in political analysis

TAYLOR & FRANCIS

For further details on these and other journals, or to request free sample copies, please contact:

Brant EmeryTaylor & Francis Ltd PO Box 25 AbingdonOxfordshire OX14 3UE, UKTel: + 44 (0)1235 401065 Fax: + 44 (0)1235 401550Email: [email protected]

Taylor & Francis incorporates Carfax, Spon Press, and RoutledgeAll of these journals are available online, for more information visit: www.tandf.co.uk/journals

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Limited, founded in 1904, by the Liberal Quaker

philanthropist, Joseph Rowntree, was deliberately set up as a company which pays tax

on its income and is therefore free to give grants for political purposes, to promote

political reform and constitutional change. Joseph Rowntree was concerned inter alia with

maintaining the purity of elections and the freedom of the press and consequently in the past

two decades the main focus of the Trust’s grant making has been directed towards these areas.

Over the past ten years the Trust has taken regular samplings of public opinion on constitutional

reform and other related matters in its State of the Nation polls.

While the Trust does not normally give grants for research and other charitable purposes it

necessarily has a close interest in the work of political scientists and extends its

congratulations to the Political Studies Association for its Golden Jubilee.

35

Cartoon from the London Daily Mirror, 2 July 1909, by William Kerridge Haselden (1872-1953)

Votes and Violence

The Centre for the Study of Cartoons and Caricature ishappy to join in the peaceful celebrations of the fiftiethanniversary of the Political Studies Association!

The Centre was established in 1973 to encourage the studyof cartoons of political and social comment from Britishnewspapers and magazines. The Centre’s collectionincludes 80,000 original cartoons and strips, 65,000

cartoon cuttings, a photo library of 60,000 images forpublication and research, and a reference library of booksand magazines.

In 1990 the Centre also began digitising the cartoons in itscollection, and its website at http://library.ukc.ac.uk/cartoons/now holds 38,000 fully-searchable images covering Britishpolitics throughout the twentieth century.

For information on the Centre’s resources, publications, and exhibitions, contact:Dr Nicholas Hiley, Head of the Centre for the Study of Cartoons and Caricature,

Templeman Library, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury CT2 7NU, Kent, United Kingdom.Tel. +44 1227 827138, fax. +44 1227 823127, email [email protected]. http://library.ukc.ac.uk/cartoons/

36

For information about these, or any other Palgrave politics title, please contact Fiona Wyatt at Palgrave, Houndmills,

Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS tel +44 (0)1256 302864, fax +44 (0)1256 330688 or e-mail [email protected]

A full catalogue and other resources for the politics student and lecturer can be found at

www.palgrave.com/politics

PALGRAVE – THE NEW NAME FOR THE BEST POLITICS TEXTBOOKS

www.blackwellpub.com

Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UKTel: 01865 791100

A Tradition ofExcellence inPolitical Studies

The ESRC is the UK’s largest funding agency forresearch and postgraduate training relating to socialand economic issues. We have a track record ofproviding high-quality, relevant research to business,the public sector and government.

Official Sponsors

Awards Ceremony Organisers

PSA Co-ordinators: Professor Charlie Jeffery and Professor John Benyon

Event Management: Maxine Vlieland and Jenny Fowler, Specialist Conferences Ltd

Stage design: Simon Coote, SimageCommunications

50th Anniversary Brochure

Editor: Dr Jon Tonge; Assisted by: Professor Charlie Jeffery, Professor JohnBenyon, Dr Dan Hough and Jack Arthurs

Cover illustration: New Statesman

Design: Infinite Design

Printed by: Statex Print

Page 7: Michael Cummings, Daily Express, 27 April 1959, © Express Newspapers

Page 9: Vicky, Evening Standard, 14 August 1963, © Atlantic Syndication Partners

Page 11: Nicholas Garland, Daily Telegraph, not dated, © Ewan McNaughton Associates

Page 13: Nicholas Garland, Daily Telegraph, 1 October 1974, © Ewan McNaughton Associates

Page 15: Mel Calman, Sunday Times, 6 September 1981, © S & C Calman

Page 27: Peter Brookes, The Times, 3 October 1996, © Peter Brookes/The Times

Page 29: Peter Brookes, The Times, 24 April 1997, © Peter Brookes/The Times

The PSA is a Registered Charity no. 1071825 and a Company Limited by guarantee in England and Wales no. 3628986.

The British Academy

The ESRC and the research we fundhave made a significant contributionto the understanding of electoral andpolitical behaviour in the UK.

Major research investments include:

ESRC Centre for Research intoElections and Social Trends (CREST)

CREST was set up to monitor trends insocial and political attitudes at anindividual, national and internationallevel.

The Centre Director is Professor RogerJowell from The National Centre forSocial Research.

ESRC Democracy and Participation Programme

Directed by Professor Paul Whitely,Sheffield University, the programme isinvestigating citizen participation andvoluntary activity, addressing a numberof key themes concerning the presentstate of British democracy andparticipation.

Devolution and Constitutional ChangeProgramme

The programme explores the majorconstitutional changes to the UK andprovides a timely and unrepeatableopportunity for political analysis and

economic and social research. It isdirected by Professor Charlie Jeffery,University of Birmingham.

Future Governance: Lessons fromComparative Public Policy

This multi-disciplinary programme isdeveloping our understanding of howpolicies devised in one jurisdictioncan be transferred and appliedelsewhere. Projects cover a widerange of policy areas, including theenvironment, law and order, taxation,health, social welfare, education, andbusiness regulation. Professor EdPage, University of Hull, directs theprogramme.

For further information about ESRC and the research it funds E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] or see http://www.esrc.ac.uk

Cartoons courtesy of the Centre for the Study of Cartoons, University of Kent at Canterbury:

? Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom | 50th Anniversary

Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom

Chairs 1950-2000

Norman Chester (1950-57)

K.B. Smellie (1957-60)

W.J.M. MacKenzie (1960-63)

Wilfrid Harrison (1963-65)

S.E. Finer (1965-69)

Graeme Moodie (1969-72)

A.H. Birch (1972-75)

J.E.S. Hayward (1975-77)

Hugh Berrington (1977-80)

Geraint Parry (1980-83)

Maurice M. Goldsmith (1983-86)

Raymond Plant (1986-88)

Trevor Smith (1988-89)

M.J.F. Goldsmith (1989-93)

Elizabeth Meehan (1993-96)

Ian Forbes (1996-99)

Rod Rhodes (1999-)

Political Studies AssociationDepartment of Politics, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Tel: 0191 222 8021 Fax: 0191 222 5069 E-mail: [email protected] www.psa.ac.uk

Date post:	21-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hadang
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

of the United Kingdom 50TH ANNIVERSARY · PDF file... the brochure which you hold ... great...

Documents