Cantitate/Preț
Produs

Publics, Elites and Constitutional Change in the UK: A Missed Opportunity?: Comparative Territorial Politics

Autor Daniel Kenealy, Jan Eichhorn, Richard Parry, Lindsay Paterson, Alexandra Remond
en Limba Engleză Hardback – 21 iul 2017
This book explores the governance of the UK, and the process of constitutional change, between Scotland’s independence referendum in September 2014 and the UK general election in May 2015. The book contrasts the attitudes of the public, captured through an original survey, with those of politicians, civil servants, and civic leaders, identified through over forty interviews. It pays particular attention to two case studies involving recent changes to the UK’s governing arrangements: the Smith Commission and the transfer of further powers to the Scottish Parliament, and Greater Manchester’s devolution deal that has become a model for devolution across England. It also considers the issue of lowering the voting age to 16, contrasting the political attitudes of younger voters in Scotland with those in the rest of the UK. The book will be of interest to students and scholars of UK politics, devolution, constitutional change, public attitudes, and territorial politics.
Citește tot Restrânge

Toate formatele și edițiile

Toate formatele și edițiile Preț Express
Paperback (1) 46236 lei  38-44 zile
  Springer International Publishing – aug 2018 46236 lei  38-44 zile
Hardback (1) 52618 lei  6-8 săpt.
  Springer International Publishing – 21 iul 2017 52618 lei  6-8 săpt.

Din seria Comparative Territorial Politics

Preț: 52618 lei

Preț vechi: 61903 lei
-15% Nou

Puncte Express: 789

Preț estimativ în valută:
10069 10449$ 8416£

Carte tipărită la comandă

Livrare economică 15-29 martie

Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76

Specificații

ISBN-13: 9783319528175
ISBN-10: 3319528173
Pagini: 116
Ilustrații: XI, 177 p.
Dimensiuni: 148 x 210 x 17 mm
Greutate: 0.38 kg
Ediția:1st ed. 2017
Editura: Springer International Publishing
Colecția Palgrave Macmillan
Seria Comparative Territorial Politics

Locul publicării:Cham, Switzerland

Cuprins

1. Introduction.- 2. Political engagement.- 3. Voting at 16: Lessons from Scotland for the rest of the UK?.-  4. The Smith Commission: An elite driven process.- 5. The English Question I: Is EVEL the answer?.-  6. The English Question II: Elite-driven devolution deals.- 7. Conclusion.

Notă biografică

Daniel Kenealy and Jan Eichhorn are Lecturers in Social Policy, Richard Parry is Honorary Fellow in Social Policy, Lindsay Paterson is Professor of Education Policy and Alexandra Remond is Doctoral Researcher in Politics. All are based at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Social and Political Science, UK.

Textul de pe ultima copertă

This book explores the governance of the UK, and the process of constitutional change, between Scotland’s independence referendum in September 2014 and the UK general election in May 2015. The book contrasts the attitudes of the public, captured through an original survey, with those of politicians, civil servants, and civic leaders, identified through over forty interviews. It pays particular attention to two case studies involving recent changes to the UK’s governing arrangements: the Smith Commission and the transfer of further powers to the Scottish Parliament, and Greater Manchester’s devolution deal that has become a model for devolution across England. It also considers the issue of lowering the voting age to 16, contrasting the political attitudes of younger voters in Scotland with those in the rest of the UK. The book will be of interest to students and scholars of UK politics, devolution, constitutional change, public attitudes, and territorial politics.

Caracteristici

Discusses key developments in UK governance following Scotland’s independence referendum and the General Election of 2015 Combines survey data on public attitudes with interview data outlining elite attitudes towards the process of constitutional change Explores a pattern of discrepancy between elite and public attitudes in which the elites persistently underestimate the interest of the public in debates about how the UK is governed