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]

Scottish Labour, once viewed as the most divided party in the UK, appears buoyant, the result of the growing popularity of its leader, Anas Sarwar, a more positive relationship with UK Labour, and most notably, significant gains in the polls. The party has sought to find a centre ground in a political system defined by opposing visions of Scotland's political future, a strategy which has previously left it squeezed between more assertive nationalist and unionist rivals. However, with little prospect of another independence referendum in the near term, this centre ground may yet prove fruitful. The party has an opportunity to position itself as a viable alternative in a dramatically changed political landscape. While Labour's optimism is not unfounded, its polling perhaps speaks more to the weaknesses of its political rivals than the strength of the party itself; and questions persist about Scottish Labour's political vision and constitutional offering in a political system which remains bifurcated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews myths about English identity, using 'myth' in a social scientific way, a truth held to be self‐evident; not something which is patently untrue. It argues that there must be three defining dimensions of English 'nationalism' if it is to be treated as such: first, whether there has been a significant increase in the proportion of people claiming 'English' as their national identity; second, how 'England' is treated as an 'imagined community'; and third, the degree to which the Conservative Party is the political vehicle for English nationalism. These dimensions are labelled the social, the cultural and the political. Only if there is sustained evidence for all three aspects might we consider English nationalism to be a significant phenomenon. [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 election to the Northern Ireland Assembly in May 2022 witnessed significant changes to the region's political balance. For the first time, a nationalist party became the largest, with Sinn Féin's new leading position allowing the party to provide the First Minister. The main party of unionism, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was relegated to second place. This runner-up position entitled the party to nominate the Deputy First Minister. However, in the immediate aftermath of the election, the DUP declined to do so, amid a crisis for the political institutions established under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. According to the DUP, it would return to power sharing with nationalists only upon removal of the European Union Protocol, agreed between the EU and UK government in 2019. The Protocol uniquely aligns Northern Ireland with EU rules and requires checks on goods travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Alongside unionist versus nationalist rivalries, however, the election was also marked by the best-ever performance by a party of the centre ground subscribing to neither ideology, as Alliance more than doubled its Assembly seat tally. It was now possible to speak of three big pillars in Northern Irish politics: unionist, nationalist and non-aligned, each dominated by a single party. This article examines what happened at the election, assessing the key issues and party fortunes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]