This post combines the provision of teaching support within the Politics and International Relations Programme with the requirement to study half-time in one of our priority research areas (See: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/social-and-applied-sciences/psychology-politics-and-sociology/research-and-collaboration/research-and-collaboration.aspx)
Join our team!
The starting date is 30 September 2015, or as soon as possible thereafter. Informal enquiries by email to: david.bates@canterbury.ac.uk
Closing date for applications: Thursday 6 August 2015
Interviews/Presentations are to be held: Monday 7 September and Tuesday 8 September 2015
More details of the position can be found here: http://vacancies.canterbury.ac.uk/fe/tpl_cccu01.asp?s=4A515F4E5A565B1A&jobid=98069,2158992323&key=57770933&c=214833998302&pagestamp=sescecnlyewqyrcbau
On the 15th of May I attended the ‘Women, Gender and Political Leadership’ workshop in Birbeck university. Due to my interest in the role of women in politics, I was extremely excited to hear the papers and presentations on the day. I didn’t realise the huge range of topics that would be discussed; from business strategies to ensuring women receive promotions to the increase of female representation in Zambian politics. The opportunity to ask questions and further investigate academics ideas was an incredible opportunity and I attempted to ask as many questions as possible, it was an opportunity I didn’t want to miss.
On Friday 15 May, the PSA Women and Politics Specialist Group and the Political Leadership Specialist Group – supported by Birkbeck and Canterbury Christ Church University – co-hosted a workshop on ‘Women, Gender and Political Leadership’. The increasing prominence of female leadership and recruitment, ranging from the UK General Election debates to the US Presidential race, has given the study of gender and political leadership a new urgency and importance. This one-day event – organised by Dr. Mark Bennister (Canterbury Christ Church), Dr. Meryl Kenny (Leicester), and Dr. Ben Worthy (Birkbeck) – brought together 40 participants to explore this under-researched area, examining in detail the challenges for women in office and the means by which they can attain it.
Women Gender Political Leadership Workshop
Academic research exploring gender and political leadership both within and beyond the UK was presented at the workshop, beginning with an opening panel focused on comparative selection and leadership performance. Papers in this session explored the relationship between political leadership and performance feedback; differing logics of access to legislative and executive office; and the question of whether women leaders were more like to promote women ministers. The second panel of the day focused on the UK context, with papers on women and political leadership in Scotland; gender and PMQs; the impact of Margaret Thatcher; and gendered conceptions of the ‘good’ prime minister. The final session of the day moved beyond Europe to look at the gendered tensions of ‘First Ladyship’; women’s political leadership in Zambia; and the political oratory of Hillary Clinton.
The event also featured a plenary roundtable with Professor Tim Bale (QMUL), Dr. Rainbow Murray (QMUL) and Dr. Rosie Campbell (Birkbeck), reflecting on the 2015 General Election. This roundtable is available as a podcast: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2015/05/women-gender-and-political-leadership/ Plans are underway to follow up the workshop with further events and panels, as well as academic outputs.
It looks inevitable that for two elections running no party will win an overall majority. Moreover, in the event of a hung Parliament and another election being held within 12 months, there is little to suggest that the result would be significantly different. All this is evidence not that Britain is hopelessly divided, rather that Britain is entering a period of major change in the functioning of its democratic system. British voters are not going to give a mandate to govern to a single party for the foreseeable future. This has been the basis of British democracy in all its various incantations for hundreds of years, from the time of elite voting to mass democracy. The two party system and its symbiotic first past the post electoral system no longer represent the wishes or have the ability to solve the grievances of the British public. British democracy has evolved continuously to adapt to societal changes, it will evolve again and adapt to this present situation.
By Mark Bennister, Senior Lecturer in British PoliticsI’m going to answer that question indirectly. Stefan Rousseau/PA
The final instalment in a series of non-debating debates ahead of the 2015 election took place under the auspice of David Dimbleby. It was billed as a BBC Question Time format and pitted the three main party leaders against an audience made up of the general public, 25% of whom supported each party and 25% of whom were undecided or supporters of other parties.
The format allowed for some fairly hostile questioning of David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. The questioning largely focused on welfare and tax, immigration, the EU and the NHS but the liveliest exchanges were on the post-election horse trading that will take place in the likely event of an inconclusive election result on May 7.
Cameron peps up
First came Prime Minister David Cameron, who bounded up the stairs to greet his audience, no doubt mindful of the accusations that his campaign has lacked energy and that he is looking tired.
He was quick with his responses (sometimes too quick, such as when he made an error in his response to a question on child tax credits). He very often avoided the question, though, and appeared more frenetic and less calm than the situation demanded. Confronted with challenging questions, he sought to deflect attention to Labour as often as possible and present voters with a binary choice on May 7.
In a stage-managed moment worthy of a Boris Johnson conference speech, Cameron pulled out the letter left by Treasury minister Liam Byrne when Labour last left government, claiming there was no money left. The theatrics were the basis of the narrative to be rammed home at every opportunity: you can’t trust Labour on the economy.
Note the theatrics.Stefan Rousseau/PA
Cameron maintained his fast pace throughout but felt on the defensive on the NHS and the EU. The former is his “life’s work” he attested, and voters will have to trust his track record on the latter. Neither were particularly convincing arguments.
Cameron stuck doggedly to his line that he is fighting for an overall majority when quizzed about post election negotiations. When pressed, he accepted his red line would be the EU referendum. The audience was unimpressed and warned him to treat voters with enough intelligence to deserve answers on which parties he would or would not work with in a hung parliament.
Miliband firm on SNP
Ed Miliband’s style was calmer. He took a more conversational tone than Cameron and attempted to directly answer questions and address each questioner by name.
But he once again blamed the global financial crisis – rather than the last Labour government – for the state of the British economy. This highlights Labour’s challenge – voters equate management of the government’s finances with their own personal financial management. The last Labour government remains a millstone, even if the economics is not correct. Miliband found it hard to escape this line of questioning.
Like Cameron, Miliband insisted he was working for a majority. He stated that there would be no deal (of any kind) with the SNP. As an audience member noted, this may totally rule out any Labour government – and Miliband said that was a price he was willing to pay.
Clegg plays honest
Nick Clegg had the most gain from the Question Time format. He was both light hearted and combative in defending his decision to go into coalition in 2010, insisting that he put “the country before the party”.
He was honest enough not to over claim the Liberal Democrats’ chances in the election. He repeated his assertion that the party with the biggest mandate has the right to “make the first move” – which is not constitutionally correct.
We learnt from this final exchange that while Cameron and Miliband may publicly claim to be fighting for a majority, they are obviously working on red lines for negotiation. The audience however seemed one step ahead of the party leaders, understanding that deals will have to be done.
Cameron continues with an aloof and often patronising approach but has a spring back in his step. Miliband’s conversational stance can seem too fake and he still lacks the authenticity necessary to help the party surge. Clegg may have regained a bit of credibility but it is likely to be too little, too late.
This post originally appeared in the Conversation Blog: http://theconversation.com/leaders-dodge-talk-of-coalitions-in-question-time-showdown-41065
canterburypolitics.wordpress.com 