In search of common ground about the commons

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Krashinsky
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
The Commons

Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part II

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lobban
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Political Issue ◽  
Open Court ◽  
Vice Chancellor ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Court Of Chancery ◽  
Lord Chancellor ◽  
Court Of Appeal

As demonstrated in Part I, the question of Chancery reform before 1827 was much debated in party terms and focused largely on Lord Eldon's shortcomings as a decision-maker. After Eldon's departure, it largely ceased to be a party-political issue, although by 1830 law reform in general was firmly on the political agenda. With Eldon gone, there was much common ground on the outlines of Chancery reform. This can be seen from the plan proposed in the Commons by the conservative Sir Edward Sugden in December 1830. Sugden suggested creating a court of appeal for equity, on which the Lord Chancellor, Master of the Rolls, Chief Baron, and Vice Chancellor would sit. He proposed reforms in the masters' offices, under which they would be paid salaries rather than fees, and he wanted masters to sit in open court, with limited judicial functions. He also advocated retrenchment of sinecures and the removal of payment by fees. These ideas were all echoed in the new reformist Chancellor Brougham's proposals for the court, which he elaborated in the spring of 1831.

Supremacy in the Commons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Como
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Full Range ◽  
City Government ◽  
Political Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Final Settlement ◽  
The City

The creation of the New Model Army in 1645 brought unprecedented polarization to parliament’s cause. Common ground between “presbyterians” and “independents” eroded and, increasingly, Roundheads were driven into competing camps. This polarization was exacerbated by the polemical interventions of the most extreme independents, most notably the clique associated with Richard Overton’s secret press. The resulting political battles were conducted using the full range of techniques and practices outlined in previous chapters. Parliamentary maneuver was complemented by grass-roots mobilization, including petitioning, co-optation of the city government, sermons and countermeasures, rumors, street placarding, and calculated print campaigns, hinting at significant transformations in the conduct of political life. Paradoxically, these conflicts worsened with parliament’s victory at Naseby, as the competing sides gathered strength to struggle over the final settlement. The chapter concludes by examining the political rise of John Lilburne, with his controversial claims for the supremacy of the House of Commons.

A Study in Failure: Thomas Attwood, M.P. For Birmingham, 1832–1839

1978 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. Moss
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Common People ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Political Agitation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Common ◽  
Previous Summer

Contemporary reactions to the 1832 Reform Act were diverse. Concomitant with the feeling of relief that a revolution had been avoided was a fear even among some of the Bill's most earnest advocates that the whigs had perhaps gone too far. The long period of political agitation by extra-parliamentary associations suggested that a radical House of Commons might emerge from the forthcoming elections. In fact, the expected radical onslaught never really materialized. Although they were returned to the Commons in strength by the election of December, the radicals failed to find common ground for action and the whigs successfully defended the pact given royal assent the previous summer. That sentence of failure is not unreasonable. Radicalism in the early nineteenth century was by its very nature the province of the individualist whose imagination often ranged beyond the bounds of practicality and who found compromise irksome. Membership of the House of Commons was to prove a chastening experience for men accustomed to the adulation of the common people. Rules of procedure and the traditional circle of agenda so circumscribed these enthusiasts that energy became sapped and their sense of mission vitiated. Woodward's suggestion, too, that the radicals floundered because they ‘defended the interests of a class to which they did not belong’ may contain a measure of truth. But apart from the odd chapter in the occasional biography, there has been a marked lack of interest in proceeding beyond these general conclusions; failure is too often equated with justified obscurity.

scholarly journals Aural Commons without an Aural Community?

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-80
Author(s):  
Juhana Venäläinen
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Process ◽  
Media Representations ◽  
Acoustic Environment ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
Living Together ◽  
The Commons

This article explores the ontological, epistemological, and ethical implications of understanding urban soundscapes as aural commons: as dynamic fields of action shaped together by various actors with heterogeneous valuations. Adopting the perspective of the commons implies that the management ofsoundscapes should not be framed in terms of isolated sound (re)sources but through the social, cultural, and political processes by which the actors inhabiting the shared acoustic environment seek to make sense of their inevitable coexistence. The notion of aural commons is illustrated with a particular noise dispute between a multi-story night spot and its neighbors in Helsinki, Finland, from a media ethnographic approach. The analysis shows that relevant arenas and practices through which differing sonic valuations could be mediated are lacking. Noise disputes in administrative processes and their media representations are translated into a technical discourse that fails to create common ground for appreciating the differences in living together in a city with sound. By focusing on the potential of commoning as a social process, thearticle proposes an alternative approach to understanding and improving the socio-cultural and socio-material dynamics of urban soundscapes.

Corporate social responsibility and the nonprofit sector: exploring the common ground

Kybernetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav Valentinov
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Nonprofit Sector ◽  
Voluntary Action ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Corporate Social

Purpose Many nonprofit missions and the goals of socially responsible corporations are often found to refer to similar moral ideals related to improving the quality of human life. To take account of this salient fact, the paper aims to theorize the functional equivalence between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the nonprofit sector. Design/methodology/approach The argumentative strategy is to draw on the conceptual construct of the complexity-sustainability trade-off to develop a systems-theoretic interpretation of Roger Lohmann’s vision of the commons as an embodiment of collective voluntary action. Findings The emerging conceptual imagery is that of corporations and nonprofits as social systems continually seeking to sustain themselves by processing and codifying their societal environment which includes the commons in which Lohmann took a central interest. The possible functional equivalence of corporations and nonprofits is traced back to their struggling to develop and improve their responsiveness to the respective commons. Originality/value This argument is shown to cut across a range of issues in the modern nonprofit sector scholarship, while shedding new light on the ongoing debates on CSR and stakeholder theory.

A Comparative Legal and Historical Study of the Commons in Italy and England and Wales

2009 ◽  
pp. 85-118
Author(s):  
Margherita Pieraccini
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Historical Study ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Cultural Economies ◽  
Interesting Area

- Margherita Pieraccini Historically, common land occupied a central role in the agrarian and cultural economies of Europe. Although the governance of the commons shaped by different regimes of property rights was heterogeneous, it is possible to uncover a common ground in the widespread centrality assigned to customs. Today, common land is not an anachronistic relict but remains an interesting area of study given its revitalisation in national policies and laws. This article presents a study of comparative law between English and Welsh common land and Italian commons, focussing on the similar historical transformation they experienced. In fact, the predominance of agrarian practices and local customs of the past has been erased by the nationalisation of the commons in both countries. In Italy, this nationalisation should be attributed to the levelling philosophy of the 1766/1927 law, in England and Wales to the Commons Registration Act 1965 and Commons Act 2006. If contemporary political and legislative discourses portray the commons as examples of environmental sustainability and communitarian governance, in reality this position is more a product of a political adhesion to the recent discursive orthodoxy centred on the community than a genuine legislative attempt to confer responsibility and autonomy to the principal stakeholders of the commons. From a theoretical point of view the article follows the institutionalist approach, nonetheless criticising its holistic understanding of the concepts of community and locality. Key words: common land, governance, customs, sustainability, England and Wales, Italy.

Talking Across Cultures in Early Intervention: Finding Common Ground to Meet Children's Communication Needs

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Peña ◽  
Christine Fiestas
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Cultural Orientation ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Caregiver Role

Abstract In this paper, we explore cultural values and expectations that might vary among different groups. Using the collectivist-individualist framework, we discuss differences in beliefs about the caregiver role in teaching and interacting with young children. Differences in these beliefs can lead to dissatisfaction with services on the part of caregivers and with frustration in service delivery on the part of service providers. We propose that variation in caregiver and service provider perspectives arise from cultural values, some of which are instilled through our own training as speech-language pathologists. Understanding where these differences in cultural orientation originate can help to bridge these differences. These can lead to positive adaptations in the ways that speech-language pathology services are provided within an early intervention setting that will contribute to effective intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document