City dweller aspirations for cities of the future: How do environmental and personal wellbeing feature?

This paper explores city dweller aspirations for cities of the future in the context of global commitments to radically reduce carbon emissions by 2050; cities contribute the vast majority of these emissions and a growing bulk of theworld's population lives in cities. The particular challenge of creating a carbon reduced future in democratic countries is that the measures proposed must be acceptable to the electorate. Such acceptability is fostered if carbon reduced ways of living are also felt to bewellbeing maximising. Thus the objective of the paper is to explore what kinds of cities people aspire to live in, to ascertain whether these aspirations align with or undermine carbon reduced ways of living, as well as personal wellbeing. Using a novel free associative technique, city aspirations are found to cluster around seven themes, encompassing physical and social aspects. Physically, people aspire to a city with a range of services and facilities, green and blue spaces, efficient transport, beauty and good design. Socially, people aspire to a sense of community and a safe environment. An exploration of these themes reveals that only a minority of the participants' aspirations for cities relate to lowering carbon or environmental wellbeing. Far more consensual is emphasis on, and a particular vision of, aspirations that will bring personal wellbeing. Furthermore, city dweller aspirations align with evidence concerning factors that maximise personal wellbeing but, far less, with those that produce lowcarbonways of living. In order to shape a lower carbon future that city dwellers accept the potential convergence between environmental and personal wellbeing will need to be capitalised on: primarily aversion to pollution and enjoyment of communal green space.

The New Instantaneity: How Social Media are Helping us Privilege the (Politically) Correct over the True

The recent sacking of the eminent scientist Tim Hunt from one of the UK’s leading research institutions is only the latest in a series of cases where public individuals have been derided for comments made in jest on social media, with serious consequences for their professional and personal lives. This article discusses the case of Tim Hunt as an example of the extent to which the privileging of the correct over the true which has long pervaded media discourse is taken to the extreme by the instant-response culture of social media. It points to the emergence of a new form of instantaneity enabled by these networked forms of communication that serves to reinforce systemic inaction rather than the change widely associated with these technologies. It draws on philosophy and Critical Theory as useful conceptual frameworks for highlighting the ways in which Twitter & co. increasingly call us to action but crowd out thought, thereby passing over opportunities for real social change.

Late twentieth century congressional leaders as shapers of and hostages to political context: Gingrich, Hastert, and Lott

Most contemporary explanations of congressional leadership postulate a version of contextual theory that typically places greatest emphasis on the strength of party and downplays the personal skills of individual leaders. By analyzing the leadership of just three recent individuals—Gingrich, Hastert, and Lott—this essay demonstrates the extent to which these leaders' different styles, skills, and characteristics interacted with changing political contexts and strategic environments to impact political and policy outcomes. Context matters, but so does leadership skill. Most graphically, Gingrich—a rare transforming leader in Burns' typology—demonstrates the importance of the right person and the right conditions being in place at the same time and the ability of an individual imaginative leader to intervene exogenously to have a significant effect on policy outcomes. Yet the essay also demonstrates that even where leaders adopt more conventional transactional styles, as Hastert and Lott did, the skill and success with which they juggle political pressures emanating from different, often conflicting, contexts—skills in context—also matters.