The effect of COVID-19 lockdowns on political support: Some good news for democracy?

Major crises can act as critical junctures or reinforce the political status quo, depending on how citizens view the performance of central institutions. We use an interrupted time series to study the political effect of the enforcement of a strict confinement policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we take advantage of a unique representative web-based survey that was fielded in March and April 2020 in Western Europe to compare the political support of those who took the survey right before and right after the start of the lockdown in their country. We find that lockdowns have increased vote intentions for the party of the Prime Minister/President, trust in government and satisfaction with democracy. Furthermore, we find that, while rallying individuals around current leaders and institutions, they have had no effect on traditional left–right attitudes.     

Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda‐setting

Inspired by the agenda‐setting literature, this article outlines a model of issue competition focusing on the interaction between government and opposition parties through the party‐system agenda. Unlike previous studies of issue competition, the model makes it possible to answer questions such as why some parties have greater success than others in forcing other parties to address unpleasant issues. One of the central implications of the model is that opposition parties are freer to focus continually on issues that are advantageous to themselves, whereas government parties more often are forced to respond to issues brought up on the party‐system agenda. Using data on issue competition in Denmark covering 25 years and 23 issue categories, the issue competition model is evaluated and finds strong support in a set of cross‐sectional time‐series analyses.     

'Sharing the Proceeds of Growth': Conservative Economic Policy under David Cameron

Upon becoming Conservative leader, David Cameron, and his Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, initially sought to compete with Labour by pledging increased expenditure on education and the NHS, and thereby insisting that tax cuts would have to wait. Rather than cutting taxation overall, the emphasis was on restructuring and simplifying Britain's tax system, and shifting the burden towards the better off, mainly thorough promoting environmental taxes. However, the economic collapse at the end of 2008 has prompted the Conservatives to modify this new economic stance, by insisting that they will no longer match Labour's planned increases in public expenditure, but, instead, will increase it at a lower rate. This is intended to reduce the need to increase government borrowing during the recession, and thereby ensure that when the economy recovers, the proceeds of economic growth can be shared between higher public expenditure and lower taxation, rather than being spent on repaying government debt for many years ahead.     

Sovereignty Negotiations and Gibraltar's Military Facilities: How Two “Red-Line” Issues Became Three

The Brussels Agreement signed between Britain and Spain in 1984 aimed to resolve all aspects of the dispute over Gibraltar, including sovereignty, which dated back to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. Desultory progress was made in negotiations until 2001, when the British Government decided to attempt to negotiate a joint sovereignty agreement. From the outset two non-negotiable (‘red-line’) issues on Britain's part were established: the agreement must be permanent, and it must be subject to a referendum in Gibraltar. As the negotiations progressed, a third ‘red-line’ issue emerged: Britain insisted on retaining control of Gibraltar's military facilities. The article explores how this third issue emerged and the possible reasons why it did so following 9/11.