Search results
policies pursued in the 1950s first by Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Gaitskell and then by his successor R.A. Butler. They both pursued Keynesian theories of demand-side economics (Peele 2004, 91). Moreover, post-ideological politics – according to Mouffe – is, in fact, anything but, as perhaps evidenced by US President George W. Bush’s reference to ‘rogue states’ and ‘the axis of evil’. Interestingly, in 2004 more people in the USA voted than in the previous fifty years. Perhaps because the contest between George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry presented the
points out how rules are needed to define rules – you cannot make a rule without first defining your 206 Afterword criteria, and this definition of criteria is a rule in itself. In Manchester, urban decision makers are creating new rules to support the development of the city, whilst also working within their responsibilities and obligations as democratic representatives of government. As discussed in the Introduction, when Councillor Sir Richard Leese and Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne MP met to agree devolution of budgetary and decision-making powers
reinforce and partly reinvent their ways of maintaining their aura of impartiality. The move towards performance auditing National auditing institutions have a long history in Western territorial states. At the most general level, their history can be divided into three periods. First, in the UK, which is probably the country with the longest 72 Neoliberal power and public management reforms tradition of formalised public auditing, we find a reference to the Auditor of the Exchequer as far back as 1314 (National Audit Office, 2015a). Similar centralised audit
2 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IN MEDIEVAL ENGLISH LAW Wendy J. Turner In 1286, the Exchequer sent an escheator – an investigator of escheats, lands that could revert to the king – to inquire about Peter Seyvill, a man said to be ‘incapable of managing his lands or affairs’, a freneticus idiota. If Peter was mentally ‘incapable’, the escheator was to grant guardianship of Peter, his wife, children, and property to Peter’s brother-in-law, John Dychton. The escheator found Peter to be ‘unable to manage’, a condition that in the twenty
2 Muriel Matters goes vanning it with Asquith: campaigning cross country Asquith became Prime Minister in April 1908. Till then, he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer and an adroit deputy leader of the House of Commons. His predecessor Campbell-Bannerman’s solution to any problem was ‘send for the sledge-hammer’.1 Yet Campbell- Bannerman’s badly declining health meant that Asquith’s status as heir apparent was assured. So that spring, when women needed to target their suffrage deputations effectively, they naturally directed them to the Treasury. Then they
for the Republic’s economy but for the relationship between North and South, and the fluid nature of the border itself. Such was the general hysteria surrounding media reports of shoppers flocking north and the worries of economists (see Millar, 2009) that the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Statistics Office agreed to attempt to quantify how much was being lost in tax to the Irish exchequer. It devised a series of questions that were incorporated into the Quarterly National Household Survey in 2009 and 2010. The findings, although extremely
records of the English and (far less abundantly) the Norman Exchequers reveal that judicial duels were widely employed for the settlement of both civil and criminal pleas during the second half of the twelfth century. References taken from these sources never describe a plea in detail, for they were after all primarily intended to provide records of the ‘profits of justice’, money obtained for the king or duke – or in some instances to note the expenses incurred by the sheriff or other royal official in the organisation of duels and the punishment of those who were
problems of maintaining the requisite levels of recruitment were regarded as less severe.5 Sir John Grigg at the War Office, writing to Sir John Anderson, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in February 1945, felt it unlikely that either of these services would ‘find it difficult to fill their postwar complements’.6 The necessity to maintain a high military profile had not only political but also economic implications. In August 1945 John Maynard Keynes warned that the country faced ‘a financial Dunkirk’.7 In addition to financing the new welfare state, the Labour government
Office responsibility for electricity supply, aspects of agriculture, fisheries and food would not be transferred. The report took the view that a ‘devolved legislative assembly should have its own separate civil service’ (Ibid.: 245, para. 807). Kilbrandon favoured an Exchequer Board, independent of the Scottish and UK Governments with the Scottish budget timed to fit in with central government’s public spending round. The Board would define the total level of expenditure after considering representations from both the Scottish Government and the Treasury. Kilbrandon
approval. 8 In 1635, John Hampden refused to pay the assessment on land he owned in Buckinghamshire. 9 The government brought legal action against him in the Court of Exchequer to show cause for his failure to pay. The matter, on account of its significance as a test case, was then heard before all the common law judges in the Exchequer Chamber from 1637–8. 10 The judgment went against Hampden, seven judges to five. Fierce reactions followed from both sides, culminating in 1641 when the Long Parliament impeached several judges from the case. The Parliamentary