Search results

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.

David Fée contrasts the revival of the New Towns principles under various forms in the UK over the last 20 years with the absence of debate in France. He first reviews the history of the creation of the New Towns and their iconic status in the new French Fifth Republic born in 1958. Then, he examines the housing situation today which on the face of it would warrant the development of new settlements to meet the housing needs of the country. This paradox is then accounted for by referring to a different demographic context to the 1960s and 1970s and to the transfer of planning powers from the 1980s on from central to local government. These are deemed to be incompatible with a new top-down planning experiment on the size of New Towns. He then moves on to the issue of contemporary official planning principles that emphasise sustainability and densification that are thought to run against the possibility of building on green fields. This is compounded by the decision of many councils to accommodate new housing in the shape of ecoquartiers (eco-neighbourhoods) or environmentally sensitive urban extensions built by private and public developers in keeping with the local development plan. Finally, the question of public opinion and New Towns is raised and he argues that their association in the public’s mind with post-war high-rise urban extensions makes it difficult to repeat the experiment.

The multiplicity of the late-night television offer is a recent phenomenon. In the late 1940s, TV was still in its experimental stage and programming was limited to certain hours of the day. How then did late-night evolve from one dominant program to the cornucopia that exists today? To what extent did the progressive fragmentation of the media environment contribute to this exponential growth in late-night programs? To answer these questions, this chapter will look closely at three phases of late-night history: the ascendance of The Tonight Show during the Johnny Carson era, Johnny's succession when two princes vied for his late-night throne, and then finally the latest developments where a new generation of late-night royalty, which I refer to as The House of Stewart, would emerge with a plethora of shows. Simultaneously, this chapter will also delve into the media context during each phase which became increasingly fragmented leading to an explosion of new ways of experiencing television.

The long controversy that has waxed furiously around the implementation of the EEC Directives on the inspection of poultry meat and hygiene standards to be observed in poultry slaughterhouses, cutting‐up premises, &c, appears to be resolved at last. (The Prayer lodged against the Regulations when they were formally laid before Parliament just before the summer recess, which meant they would have to be debated when the House reassembled, could have resulted in some delay to the early operative dates, but little chance of the main proposals being changed.) The controversy began as soon as the EEC draft directive was published and has continued from the Directive of 1971 with 1975 amendments. There has been long and painstaking study of problems by the Ministry with all interested parties; enforcement was not the least of these. The expansion and growth of the poultry meat industry in the past decade has been tremendous and the constitution of what is virtually a new service, within the framework of general food inspection, was inevitable. None will question the need for efficient inspection or improved and higher standards of hygiene, but the extent of the

Contrasting the Madisonian model of democracy with Westminster style arrangements, this chapter examines how American political scientists and policymakers expressed second thoughts about the constitutional settlement of 1787 and looked towards the British political system for possible reforms to their own. In particular, it details the arguments offered by Thomas Finletter, James MacGregor Burns, and others, from the 1940s through to the early 1960s that the United States might adopt certain features of the Westminster model. The chapter analyzes their proposals and the – essentially negative – reception that they received. It concludes by addressing the failure of these proposals and the endurance of fragmented government within the United States.

Inequalities in English schools stem from numerous factors be they educational, social or economic. Thatcherite policies reshaped the education agenda in the 1980s and inequalities were ignored by successive governments until 1997 when New Labour included social objectives in its approach with measures, such as Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities. The following Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and Conservative governments of David Cameron maintained such objectives through the Pupil Premium and the Universal Infant Free School Meals scheme. Theresa May’s government seems to have adopted a different policy since July 2016, focusing on meritocracy. Methodological obstacles are inherent to studies on the evolution of inequalities at school level and it may be argued that successive Cabinets since 1997 have not implemented structural reforms designed to tackle economic inequalities, thus limiting the effect of their educational reforms.

This introductory chapter presents the book’s rationale and structure and reflects on the notion of ‘fragmented powers’ as a key entry into understanding evolving power dynamics in the English-speaking world. Combining historical and contemporary perspectives, from the late 18th century to the contemporary era, fragmentation as a non-linear process reveals the tensions between centralisation and decentralisation, as well as confrontation and cooperation in the fields of constitutional and institutional issues, politics and political party systems, the media, and in urban and social policies at both the intra-national and transnational levels. The adoption of a long view perspective and a multidisciplinary approach allows to critically assess the concept of fragmentation by questioning both its positive and negative effects on the cultural, political and socio-economic environments.