Professor Richard Grayson

Operation War Diary, launched in 2014, is a crowdsourcing project in which ‘Citizen Historians’ tag First World War British Army Western Front war diaries to create data for analysis. This article discusses the methodology used in the project and then analyses (for the duration of the war) data for the six original British Expeditionary Force infantry divisions (1-6) and the first two cavalry divisions (1-2) to arrive in France. It highlights uses of the data on issues such as how much time was spent at the front and/or fighting, which appears to be 47% for infantry battalions, 62% for the artillery and 20% for the cavalry. At 46%, artillery days involving some fighting were more than twice the infantry’s at 20%. The article also highlights further research questions and ways in which fuller datasets could be compiled using crowdsourcing methods.

Local studies of military service in the First World War have traditionally focused on ‘Pals’ or other units known to be linked to a specific area. However, the availability of new records online has revolutionized the way in which local studies can be carried out. A ‘military history from the street’ approach can now document and analyse service by all those from a local area who served. The article explains how such socio-military methods, as used in the author’s monograph on West Belfast (Belfast Boys, London, Continuum, 2009), can be adapted to other areas, with a particular focus on employment data not included in that study.

The narrative of the 16th (Irish) and 36th (Ulster) divisions fighting side-by-side at Messines in June 1917 plays a major and valuable role in cross-community reconciliation on the island of Ireland. However, there is no sustained historical analysis of precisely who (in terms of geographic origin) was serving in the two divisions by June 1917. This article does that, concluding that around one-third of the men in each division had no Irish connection. This opens up the prospect of nuancing the Messines narrative so that it might play a part in British-Irish reconciliation.

This article, by Lynda Abbott and Richard Grayson, offers a fascinating example of collaboration between school and university, focused on the development of a community archive. The project — run as an extra-curricular activity — was originally inspired by a concern to preserve the personal stories of those whose lives were affected by the Second World War. As students have gained experience in researching local stories, developing interviewing skills and learning how to locate and interrogate different kinds of archival material, so their range has expanded, drawing in the experiences of combatants and non-combatants in conflicts ranging from the Boer War to recent missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article reveals the wide range of ways in which different participants have benefited from the construction, collection and dissemination of these personal narratives.

The role of remembrance of the First World War in contemporary Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland, both Official and Provisional, is examined in this article, which places such remembrance in a wider nationalist context. After considering the nature of nationalist engagement in the British army in 1914–1918, and all‐Ireland issues around remembrance, the article focuses on Sinn Féin’s involvement in Somme commemoration in 2002 and 2008. It then examines republicans’ ‘discovery’ of ancestors with a past in the British military, focusing on the Official Republican ex‐prisoners group, An Eochair. The article concludes with an examination of how far theories of memory can shed light on republican remembrance, and the extent to which changes in attitudes to remembrance are part of republicanism’s ‘historic compromise’ with unionism. It argues that despite a significant shift, republicans have engaged with remembrance on their own terms, and that the gap between them and unionists remains large, with the possibility of genuinely shared remembrance remote.

Liberal Democrat policy has been labelled as social democratic, yet the party has been reluctant to so describe itself. Taking Crosland's The Future of Socialism as a reference point, there appears to be much shared ground between social democracy and Liberal Democrat policy. Meanwhile, the party's tax policy adopted in 2006 takes the Croslandite approach of taxing wealth rather than income. Despite this, the article argues that the party is a social liberal rather than a social democratic one. These two political philosophies have so much in common that it is understandable that some commentators see the influence of social democracy where they might instead perceive social liberalism. Yet the two differ in their attitudes to the state. Both see a positive role for the state in furthering social goods. However, social liberalism shares classical liberal concerns about the dangers of an over-mighty state. This approach underpins Liberal Democrat policy.

Leo Amery has long been seen as one of the leading figures in the anti-appeasement movement. However, key aspects of his case against government foreign policy are not addressed in previous work. This article considers Amery's reputation pointing out that it is problematic to characterize him as an ‘anti-appeaser’ because he did not rule out concessions to Germany and was willing to see Germany dominate Central Europe. However, he differed from the government in advocating a Danubian economic bloc to create stability and satisfy some German desires. This flowed from Amery's imperialism and his economic nationalism. Meanwhile, he fervently opposed colonial concessions, believing that German grievances could only be satisfied in Europe. Considering whether Amery was an ‘anti-appeaser’ or a ‘real appeaser’, the article analyses Amery's doubts over whether to support Neville Chamberlain over the Munich agreement. It concludes that although Amery disagreed with Chamberlain more on tactics than strategy, these alternative tactics were significantly different from government policy. As such, aspects of the anti-appeasement case should be seen as being more nuanced than previously recognized, and the imperialist dimension of it should be understood.

This article explores the place of imperialism in aspects of Conservative defence and foreign policy between 1903 and 1939, through a comparative study of Leo Amery and the three Chamberlains (Joseph, Austen and Neville), all of whom were nominally imperialists. The article draws conclusions in two general areas. First, it argues that there has not been enough attention to the diversity of imperialist approaches to policy. Exploring the army reform controversy of 1903 suggests a fault line between some imperialists over whether imperial unity could be developed from intra-colonial or extra-colonial sources. Second, the paper contends that the functions of imperialism in Conservative policy have not been fully understood, with previous work focusing largely on social and economic policy. The article points to the existence of an ‘imperial foreign policy’ strategy within the Conservative party in the 1920s and 1930s. The historiography of imperialism within the Conservative party should therefore recognise the diversity of imperialist approaches to policy and consider the application of imperial thinking to discussions on foreign policy.

This article analyses the Liberal Democrat general election campaign of 2005, with special attention to developments in the party between 2001 and 2005. It argues that there was significant change in policy during that period, towards an agenda emphasising decentralisation and 'tough liberalism'. However, this did not significantly alter the party's overall message from that of 2001, which remained focused on policies such as scrapping university tuition fees. Meanwhile, there was great continuity in campaign strategy and tactics, particularly because of the influence of the party's Chief Executive, Lord Rennard. Tactical innovations in 2005 stemmed from the party's success at fundraising, rather than any decision that new methods of campaigning were necessary. The article concludes with a critical assessment of the campaign, and examines the issues which are likely to arise in forthcoming debates on Liberal Democrat strategy, policy and leadership.

This article contributes to the controversial debate on the post‐1945 political consensus in Britain. It examines the government response to the fighting between Mods and Rockers on Bank Holidays in 1964. Analysing the official records of the Home Office and the Cabinet Home Affairs Committee, it shows how the state declined to take drastic measures against this particular form of juvenile delinquency. The article then demonstrates how, throughout the 1960s, the Conservative and Labour parties adopted a similar approach to the issue of juvenile delinquency more generally. They did this because of shared assumptions about the nature of the problem, and how it should be dealt with; they believed that it was caused by the ‘affluent society’, and that it should be remedied by strengthening the family through the provision of help from social workers. Although enthusiasm for government action along these lines was a post‐war phenomenon, many of the assumptions underlying it had their roots in the work of pre‐war thinkers on juvenile delinquency. This suggests not only that the compass of consensus needs to be redefined to include this important aspect of social policy, but also that in explaining why a consensus existed, we need to take account of debates about juvenile delinquency in the pre‐war years.