Political science and IR society

Oh right, I don't seem to have it in my collection so I can't help. Sorry.

Maybe I can give some assistance if you tell me what YOU think liberal and whitehall interpretations of the constitutions are?

I don't know. I took this class up late and I've only been to one lecture/seminar. I had to do loads of reading this week, because I knew hardly anything about the Constitution before.

I understand most of it now, but this is the last thing I have to read and it's thrown me:

"...the convention of ministerial responsibility to Parliament was enshrined as the constitutional tool or 'buckle' through which both the Liberal and the Whitehall views of the constitution could be balanced".

Then it just name drops 'the Whitehall view' or whatever, with no explanation.

Is this the book by Birch? If so, I'm getting the feel that the whitehall interpretation is almost the realist interpretation of the constitution. It's how civil servents and parliament use it to go about state business.



That's what I kinda think?

Argh, essay.

Argh, thesis

Argh....errr...work!

Hey guys,

I have a problem

I'm starting on an essay titled 'Is there a unity in methods between natural and social sciences?' and I don't quite understand what it asks me? Is it asking me to critique different research paradigms (say, Positivism, Post-Positivism and Interpretivism) and establish if there are connections to the scientific method?

It's probably asking you whether positivism in the social sciences works or something of that sort.

Yes, I think that too.

In which case, I'm going to plan it out as a defence of positivism but also what the post-positivists (Popper et al) and the interpretists would attack within the research paradigm.

Sounds good to you?

Outta curiosity, what did you lot do your dissertations on?

Or planning to do?

Outta curiosity, what did you lot do your dissertations on?

Or planning to do?

I'm completely and utterly baffled by this question:

"Cabinet government never existed so Tony Blair could not have destroyed it". ~Discuss

Any ideas/hints/help?

Good lord, what an awful question to ask!

I guess another way to look at it is: The executive branch never existed so Tony Blair couldn't have destroyed it? lol! That sounds even worse!

On a random note, I'm watching The Thick Of It on Sky+

I'm completely and utterly baffled by this question:

"Cabinet government never existed so Tony Blair could not have destroyed it". ~Discuss

Any ideas/hints/help?