Customer Reviews:
 Students deserve better June 25, 2006
Linda Spencer (Oxfordshire)
8 out of 8 found this review helpful
The idea of comparing US and UK government and politics is a good one and Watts in principle makes a good attempt at comparing and contrasting the two. The book is readable and makes good use of boxes for explaining terms and adding additional information.
However, Watts prefers to expound at length and repetitively on soft issues, like his opinion on the influence of personality on the effectiveness of leaders and fails to deliver enough hard facts and analysis.
The role of the US Executive and separation of powers is well explained, but the differences in roles between the US and UK government is not. What does the US Secretary of State do? Who is his UK equivalent? I am no wiser after reading this book.
The role and composition of the Senate and House of Lords is also inadequately explained.
Where hard facts are given, there is inadequate explanation. How can it be, that a country like the US which hates "big government" has 10 times the civil servants than the UK has but only 5 times the population? What services are included in the civil service in both countries and why?
The most annoying feature in the book is the appearance of countless errors or grammar and syntax. I have never read a more poorly edited book. The failures reduce significantly the confidence in the author and set a bad example for students about rigour in writing.
As a teacher might say, must try harder!
 Not worth the paper upon which it is printed April 23, 2008
Alexandra M. Dimiziani
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
This book is seemingly written by an adolescent and proofread by an illiterate. Manchester University Press should be ashamed of such a publication, which serves merely to perpetuate the public's abysmal knowledge of even the most basic grammar and punctuation.
Furthermore, Watts 'educates' in broadstroke and by presenting opposing opinions more than facts (perhaps a good thing considering the erroneous nature of the some of the few facts provided).
All in all, a poor expenditure of good money.
|
