This article aims to enhance understanding of selective politicization processes in policy failures and examine the attempts of policy-makers to use framing strategies to allocate blame. The policy response to alleged submarine intrusions in Sweden and Dutch military involvement in the fall of Srebrenica are the two case-studies used in this article. These cases will be analysed using three perspectives derived from the literature on framing: depicting events as violations of core public values; depicting events as operational incidents or as symptoms of endemic problems; allocating accountability and blame for the occurrence and/or ‘mismanagement’ of crisis. Finally, we present a conceptual framework of the different shapes that political blaming can take when certain framing strategies are adopted.

Until recently, Rhodes's ‘Differentiate Polity Model’ (DPM) has been the most analytically-developed model of the British political system, but it is not without its problems. Here, we argue that the DPM over-stresses the diffuse nature of power in Britain and the extent to which the state has been hollowed out. Instead, we contend that the British political system is more closed and elitist than the DPM acknowledges; rather than being hollowed-out, the state has been reconstituted and the core executive still remains the most powerful actor in the policy process. These themes are reflected in our own ‘Asymmetric Power model’.

The Concept of ‘Critical Elections’ is Justifiably Used in Two eventualities: when there is a significant turning-point arising from a particular election, such as dramatic changes in party strengths which are subsequently consolidated and affect the structure of the party system (e.g. the replacement of one party by another as major opposition or government party); and, when in new democracies an election has a decisive effect in confirming or diverting from the democratization path. It may of course be that the latter incorporates the former.

This article is one of a series commissioned by Government and Opposition exploring identity politics in several national and international contexts. Most discussions of ‘the Canadian identity’ focus on how ‘being Canadian’ relates to various sub-state group identities, such as Québécois, Aboriginal or immigrant identities. There is often said to be a distinctly Canadian model of reconciling national identity with sub-group identities. I argue that the Canadian model of accommodating identities is not unique, but rather reflects broader trends throughout the West. I also suggest that an equally important but neglected part of ‘being Canadian’ is the external dimension i.e., how Canadians relate to the wides world.