Search

As factionalism becomes increasingly prominent within the Conservative Party, understanding the worldviews of the respective groupings has become key to understanding the party itself. This is especially true regarding the one nation group which is the most numerous in Parliament. From the Cameron era, the term 'one nation' expressed leaders' attempts to modernise the party, reckon with the Thatcherite social legacy, and carve out a distinct centre‐right identity which contained both socially liberal and distinctly conservative elements. However, reconciling 'modern' and 'conservative' views has been singularly difficult. Whilst bridging the two rhetorically and intellectually has been possible, leaders have struggled to translate such a synthesis into a viable governmental agenda that unites the party. Underlying this difficulty is fierce disagreement on immigration, sovereignty, nationhood and cosmopolitanism, resulting in one nation conservatism becoming a signal of intra‐party disagreement rather than unifying leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article "Tocqueville's Dilemmas, and Ours: Sovereignty, Nationalism, Globalization" by Ewa Atanassow, the author explores the tensions between liberalism and democracy through the lens of Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th-century French liberal thinker. Atanassow highlights Tocqueville's belief that a rich civic life of non-state associations could alleviate the tension between liberty and equality. However, she also emphasizes Tocqueville's alternative solution of a strong sense of nationhood. By examining Tocqueville's ideas on democratic nationhood, Atanassow aims to connect his theories to contemporary issues of illiberal democracy and exclusionary nationalism. The article delves into Tocqueville's background, his writings, and his views on democracy, equality, and the role of the nation. Atanassow concludes by discussing the challenges that nations and liberals face today, such as finding national cohesion in diverse societies, encouraging patriotism while discouraging jingoism, and navigating the survival of liberal nations in a non-liberal world. While Atanassow's study provides valuable insights, it also raises questions about the applicability of Tocqueville's thought to present-day challenges. [Extracted from the article]

The issue of sovereignty has never been resolved in Scotland. The 1998 Scotland Act, creating the Scottish Parliament affirmed that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, but this is disputed. In practice, the issue was left largely in abeyance as sovereignty was seen as an outdated concept. The Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 both brought back the question of sovereignty in stark terms. Analysis of data from the British Election Study of 2019 with regard to (a) the right of Scottish self‐determination, and (b) the right of a UK‐wide majority to take Scotland out of the EU, allows us to identify 'sovereigntists' and 'unionists'. Sovereigntists, on both dimensions, now constitute a majority. A smaller group of unionists reject both positions. There remains a group of 'semi‐sovereigntists' who accept Scottish self‐determination, but also that the UK as a whole should decide on Brexit. Controlling for the social and political factors, Scots are increasingly polarised around issues of sovereignty, which have become central to contemporary Scottish politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minds the Values Gap, a report published by The UK in a Changing Europe, highlights the poor alignment of the values expressed within the major parties by their MPs and their activists, with those voters who support them. Voters as a whole tend to the left on economic values, and to the authoritarian on social values. Although the data imply that it is the social authoritarianism that defines both Leave voters and Labour–Conservative switchers, this response argues that issues of national identity, democracy and sovereignty are neglected in that analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The political discourse is characterised by two opposing ideals of hard and soft Brexit. In this article, we present evidence of attitudinal types that map neatly onto these archetypal views. The hard Brexit view is defined by issues that eurosceptics prioritise, most prominently sovereignty. By contrast, europhiles prioritise cooperation with Europe in terms of scientific collaboration and market access. However, attitudinal types are not either/or in the minds of the British public, and many prioritise all or none of the issues. Further, the two opposing positions together account for 37 per cent of the public's view. That is, just over one‐third differentiate between the salient issues in ways congruent with political ideals. National identity plays a particular role in the sociodemographic profiles of these attitude types. Older people have a strong stance in any direction (sovereignty, cooperation, or both), but national identity is linked to differentiated positions (sovereignty only or cooperation only). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]