Machine Learning and Sentiment Analysis Approaches for the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Machine Learning and Sentiment Analysis Approaches for the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates Machine Learning and Sentiment Analysis Approaches for the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Zaher Ibrahim Saleh Salah Faculty of Science Department of Computer Science May 2014 \It is not best that we should all think alike; it is a difference of opinion that makes horse races." Mark Twain Abstract In this thesis the author seeks to establish the most appropriate mechanism for con- ducting sentiment analysis with respect to political debates; firstly so as to predict their outcome and secondly to support a mechanism to provide for the visualisation of such debates in the context of further analysis. To this end two alternative approaches are considered, a classification-based approach and a lexicon-based approach. In the context of the second approach both generic and domain specific sentiment lexicons are considered. Two techniques to generating domain-specific sentiment lexicons are also proposed: (i) direct generation and (ii) adaptation. The first was founded on the idea of generating a dedicated lexicon directly from labelled source data. The second approach was founded on the idea of using an existing general purpose lexicon and adapting this so that it becomes a specialised lexicon with respect to some domain. The operation of both the generic and domain specific sentiment lexicons are com- pared with the classification-based approach. The comparison between the potential sentiment mining approaches was conducted by predicting the attitude of individual debaters (speakers) in political debates (using a corpus of labelled political speeches extracted from political debate transcripts taken from the proceedings of the UK House of Commons). The reported comparison indicates that the attitude of speakers can be effectively predicted using sentiment mining. The author then goes on to propose a framework, the Debate Graph Extraction (DGE) framework, for extracting debate graphs from transcripts of political debates. The idea is to represent the structure of a debate as a graph with speakers as nodes and \exchanges" as links. Links between nodes were established according to the exchanges between the speeches. Nodes were labelled according to the \attitude" (sentiment) of the speakers, \positive" or \negative", using one of the three proposed sentiment mining approaches. The attitude of the speakers was then used to label the graph links as being either \supporting" or \opposing". If both speakers had the same attitude (both \positive" or both \negative") the link was labelled as being \supporting"; otherwise the link was labelled as being \opposing". The resulting graphs capture the abstract representation of a debate where two opposing factions exchange arguments on related content. i Finally, the author moves to discuss mechanisms whereby debate graphs can be structurally analysed using network mathematics and community detection techniques. To this end the debate graphs were conceptualised as networks in order to conduct appropriate network analysis. The significance was that the network mathematics and community detection processes can draw conclusions about the general properties of debates in parliamentary practice through the exploration of the embedded patterns of connectivity and reactivity between the exchanging nodes (speakers). Keywords: Sentiment Analysis, Machine Learning, Debate Visualisation, Debate Analysis & Information Retrieval. ii Contents Abstract i Contents vi List of Figures xi List of Tables xiii List of Algorithms xiv Dedication xv Acknowledgement xvi 1 Introduction1 1.1 Overview...................................1 1.1.1 Political sentiment mining......................2 1.1.2 UK House of Commons debates...................3 1.2 Motivation..................................4 1.3 Research Objectives.............................4 1.4 Research Methodology............................5 1.5 Research Contributions...........................6 1.6 Thesis Structure...............................7 1.7 Published Work................................ 11 1.8 Summary................................... 12 2 Previous Work 13 2.1 Introduction.................................. 13 2.2 The classifier-based approach to sentiment extraction........... 14 2.3 The lexicon-based approach to sentiment extraction........... 17 2.3.1 Generic lexicon-based sentiment mining.............. 17 iii 2.3.2 Domain specific lexicon-based sentiment mining.......... 18 2.4 Related work on visualising the debate structure............. 19 2.5 Related work on graph networks analysis for political sentiment mining 27 2.6 Related work on sentiment analysis in the political domain....... 31 2.7 Summary................................... 34 3 The UK House of Commons Political Debates Corpus 35 3.1 The UK Parliamentry System........................ 36 3.2 Political parties................................ 38 3.3 Parliamentary debates............................ 40 3.4 The UK House of Commons political debates datasets.......... 41 3.5 Summary................................... 47 4 Political Sentiment Mining Using Classification 49 4.1 Preprocessing................................. 51 4.2 Classifier Generation............................. 54 4.3 Evaluation................................... 54 4.3.1 Classification using speech data only................ 56 4.3.2 Classification using speech data augmented with \party affilia- tion" and \debate ID" information................. 57 4.3.3 Classification using \party affiliation" and \debate ID" only... 58 4.4 Summary................................... 59 5 Political Sentiment Mining Using Generic Sentiment Lexicons 60 5.1 Part-Of-Speech Tagging (POST)...................... 62 5.2 Preprocessing................................. 63 5.3 Attitude detection using generic sentiment lexicons............ 65 5.4 Results obtained using the generic lexicon-based approach........ 67 5.5 Summary................................... 68 6 Political Sentiment Mining Using Domain Specific Sentiment Lexi- cons 70 6.1 Part-Of-Speech-Tagging (POST)...................... 72 6.2 Preprocessing................................. 72 6.3 Sentiment score and polarity calculation.................. 72 6.4 Lexicon generation.............................. 74 iv 6.5 Evaluation framework for domain specific sentiment lexicons....... 75 6.6 Evaluation results for domain specific lexicons............... 75 6.7 Summary................................... 77 7 Global Comparison Between The Sentiment Mining Approaches 78 7.1 Comparison.................................. 79 7.2 Summary................................... 80 8 The Debate Graph Extraction (DGE) Framework 82 8.1 Preprocessing................................. 84 8.1.1 Preprocessing for the sentiment lexicon-based approach for atti- tude detection and node labelling.................. 84 8.1.2 Preprocessing for classification-based approach for attitude de- tection and node labelling...................... 87 8.2 Attitude detection and node labelling................... 87 8.2.1 Attitude detection and node labelling using the sentiment lexicon based approach............................ 88 8.2.2 Attitude detection and node labelling using the classification- based approach............................ 88 8.3 Link identification and labelling....................... 88 8.3.1 Link identification using semantic similarity............ 89 8.3.2 Link identification using interruptions............... 90 8.3.3 Link identification using relevant interruptions.......... 90 8.3.4 Link labelling............................. 90 8.4 Debate graph generation........................... 91 8.5 Illustrative example............................. 91 8.5.1 Sentiment similarity debate graph................. 91 8.5.2 Interruption graph.......................... 92 8.5.3 Relevant interruption graph..................... 93 8.6 Summary................................... 93 9 Debate Graph Analysis 97 9.1 The debates.................................. 98 9.2 Exemplar questions.............................. 99 9.3 The debate graphs (networks)........................ 101 v 9.3.1 The approval of the invasion in Iraq debate networks....... 103 9.3.2 The military intervention in Syria debate networks........ 106 9.4 Analysis of debate graphs (networks).................... 106 9.4.1 Assortativity............................. 111 9.4.2 Community structures........................ 111 9.4.3 Assortativity: Answering question Q1 ............... 113 9.4.3.1 Disassortativity with respect to party affiliation.... 114 9.4.3.2 Disassortativity with respect to voting profile...... 114 9.4.3.3 Disassortativity in interruption vs. relevant interrup- tion networks........................ 115 9.4.3.4 Disassortativity significance testing........... 115 9.4.4 Community detection: Answering question Q2 .......... 116 9.5 Summary................................... 126 10 Conclusion 127 10.1 Summary................................... 127 10.2 Main Findings................................ 128 10.3 Research Contributions........................... 132 10.4 Research Future Extensions......................... 133 A Parliamentary Stop Words List 136 Bibliography 152 vi List of Figures 2.1 Training and testing a machine learning classifier.............. 16 2.2 Argument structure visualisation produced using the Rationale software tool. Source: Wikimedia Commons..................... 23 2.3 Simple debate graph of the form proposed in this thesis.......... 23 2.4
Recommended publications
  • Mr Simon Danczuk 1
    Mr Simon Danczuk 1 Contents 1. Letter from Mr Paul Turner-Mitchell, 23 October 2014 2 2. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Paul Turner-Mitchell, 30 October 2014 4 3. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 30 October 2014 4 4. Letter from Mr Simon Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 18 November 2014 7 5. Letter from the Commissioner to the Registrar, 24 November 2014 8 6. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 24 November 2014 9 7. Letter from the Registrar to the Commissioner, 26 November 2014 9 8. Enclosures to letter of 26 Nov ember 2014 10 9. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 16 December 2014 13 10. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Simon Danczuk MP, 12 January 2015 14 11. Email from Mr Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 14 January 2015 16 12. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk MP, 14 January 2015 17 13. Email from Mr Danczuk MP’s office to the Commissioner’s office, 26 January 201517 14. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk’s office, 26 January 2015 17 15. Telephone call from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk’s office, 29 January 2015 18 16. Email from Mr Danczuk MP to the Commissioner, 29 January 2015 18 17. Letter from the Commissioner to Mr Danczuk MP, 2 February 2015 20 18. Extract from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as of 6 January 2015 20 19. Email from the Commissioner’s office to Mr Danczuk MP, 16 February 2015 22 20.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees
    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BILL [LORDS] Second Sitting Tuesday 28 January 2014 (Afternoon) CONTENTS CLAUSES 21 to 24 agreed to. Adjourned till Thursday 30 January at half-past Eleven o’clock. PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 102) 2013 - 2014 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office. No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Saturday 1 February 2014 STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2014 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 41 Public Bill Committee28 JANUARY 2014 Intellectual Property Bill [Lords] 42 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: MR DAI HAVARD,†MR ANDREW TURNER † Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD) Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con) Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab) † Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab) † Doughty, Stephen (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/
    [Show full text]
  • West Leeds Area Management Team First Floor, the Old Library Town Street
    West Leeds Area Management Team First Floor, The Old Library Town Street Horsforth Leeds LS18 5BL Pudsey & Swinnow Forum Date: 14 th September 2010 Chair: Councillor Jarosz Present: Nigel Conder (Town Centre Manager), Clare Wiggins (Area Management), Sgt Williamson & PC Sally Johnson (West Yorkshire Police), Jack & Audrey Prince, Suzanne Wainwright / Derek Lawrence (Youth Service), Steve Lightfoot (Pudsey Business Forum), Claire Ducker, Wendy Walton, Mavis Gregory, John Sturdy, C Stevens, R Bennett, Mr & Mrs Rider, E Thomas, M Hirst, KJ & YC Robinson, J & B Knapp, B & G Stephens, V Bergin, L Spurr, S McLennan, D Carver, Carol Barber, Bernadette Gallagher, Greg Wood. 1.0 Welcome & Apologies Action 1.1 Cllr Jarosz welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Barbara Young, Phil Staniforth, Chris Hodgson, Richard Pinder, Graham Walker and David Dufton. 2.0 Minutes & Matters Arising 2.1 The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as an accurate record. 2.2 CW reported that the management committee at Swinnow Community Centre had disbanded in July and the centre was now being managed (probably temporarily) by Leeds City Council. LCC Corporate Property Management had been asked to complete a number of repairs including repairing the lights in the car park. 2.3 CW reported on behalf of PCSO Mick Cox that the potential project at Swinnow Primary School would not now be pursued as the parents needed to use that area for parking. 2.4 In relation to minute 4.5, CW reported that funding for an additional lay- by and parking scheme on the eastern side of Lidget Hill was still being pursued.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Party's Credibility Deficit Updated Tax and Spending
    The Conservative Party’s credibility deficit Updated tax and spending commitments April 2010 2 Contents Page Introduction 5 Summary 7 Methodology 8 Tables 10 Broken promises 13 45,000 new single rooms in the NHS 15 5,000 new prison places 19 Reducing taxes on savings 22 More places for science courses, training and apprenticeships 24 Maternity nurses for all 25 Reinstate the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) 28 National Loan Guarantee Scheme 30 Tax cuts 33 Corporation tax and investment allowance changes 35 Freeze council tax for two years 38 Reduce employers’ NICs for some small companies 41 Tax cuts for married couples 43 Inheritance tax cuts 50 Reverse impact of abolition of dividend tax credit 53 Tax reversals 57 Raise National Insurance Contributions thresholds 59 Oppose Broadband levy 61 Oppose cider duty increase 63 Tax increases 65 Non-domicile levy 67 Spending reductions 73 Cut Government “waste” 75 Savings on employment and skills programmes 78 Reduce spending on Building Schools for the Future 83 Reduce eligibility for tax credits 85 Reduce eligibility for Child Trust Funds 88 Reduce government spending on consultants and advertising 90 Reduce “bureaucracy” spending by a third 92 Welfare savings 95 Scrap ContactPoint 98 NHS IT Programme 100 Freeze pay and cap pensions for public sector workers 103 Reduce spending on Sure Start outreach workers 105 3 Scrap some Regional Development Agencies 107 Scrap regional assemblies 109 Scrap identity cards 110 “Cutting the cost of politics” 112 Scrap the Trade Union Modernisation
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 527 11 May 2011 No. 155 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 11 May 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 1145 11 MAY 2011 1146 12. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): House of Commons What progress has been made on the Government’s commitment to undertake a process similar to the Wednesday 11 May 2011 Calman commission on devolution funding; and if she will make a statement. [54363] The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan): Following the yes vote in the referendum on further PRAYERS powers, we have started to consider the scope and form of such a process. Now that the elections to the National [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Assembly have taken place I intend to discuss the process with other stakeholders and the First Minister. May I also take this opportunity while I am at the Dispatch Box to offer our congratulations to Carwyn Oral Answers to Questions Jones, who is currently considering forming the Welsh Assembly Government and has the largest party in the Welsh Assembly? WALES Mary Macleod: Our priority in Wales and elsewhere The Secretary of State was asked— right now is to ensure that the deficit is under control.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodhall View PUDSEY - WEST YORKSHIRE BERKELEY DEVEER
    woodhall view PUDSEY - WEST YORKSHIRE BERKELEY DEVEER k HOMES OF DISTINCTION Berkeley DeVeer has many years’ experience in building a diverse range of high-quality homes throughout the UK. Each home we build is carefully designed, combining traditional features with contemporary home comforts, utilising the latest materials and technologies to give you a property that will last. Since our formation, we have gained a reputation for our attention to detail and the careful and painstaking craftsmanship that can elevate a house into a home. From the outset, we have worked hard to make sure our customers can be proud of their homes, placing them at the heart of everything we do. And with a team of experts dedicated to finding new sustainable development land, we plan to continue to bring you homes of distinction for the foreseeable future. CITY LIVING ON YOUR DOORSTEP LIVING with DISTINCTION k Woodhall View is a stunning new development consisting of 52 bespoke luxury homes located in the West Yorkshire market town of Pudsey. Woodhall View is a truly unique development, with contemporary properties located just a stone’s throw away from a plethora of local amenities, ideal to explore the local area whilst offering easy access into Leeds city centre. Carefully designed three, four and five-bedroom homes, Woodhall View has something for everybody, and it’s location means it will appeal to young and old alike, adding a new community to West Leeds. woodhall view THE BLAKE THE JENNER THE WICKHAM PLOTS 1, 3, 25 & 34 PLOTS 43, 44, 48, 49 & 50 PLOTS
    [Show full text]
  • Daily Report Tuesday, 13 January 2015 CONTENTS
    Daily Report Tuesday, 13 January 2015 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 13 January 2015 and the information is correct at the time of publication (06:30 P.M., 13 January 2015). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 5 DEFENCE 17 BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND Bahrain 17 SKILLS 5 Christmas Cards 17 Construction: Industry 5 Defence Assistance Fund 17 Higher Education: Admissions 5 Defence Audit Committee 18 Postal Services: Harrow 6 Defence Infrastructure Work Programme 6 Organisation 18 CABINET OFFICE 7 Defence Support Group 18 Civil Servants: Recruitment 7 HMS Vengeance 19 Jobseekers Allowance: East of Investment Approvals Board 19 England 7 Service Complaints COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL Commissioner 20 GOVERNMENT 7 Tanks 21 Affordable Housing 7 DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER 21 Community Relations 8 Economic Growth: North of Council Tax 10 England 21 Disadvantaged 11 Electoral Register 22 Fire Prevention 11 EDUCATION 22 Housing: Construction 11 Academies 22 Mobile Homes 13 History: Curriculum 22 Private Rented Housing 14 Pre-school Education 23 Private Rented Housing: Greater Students: Surveys 26 London 14 Teachers: South West 27 Public Expenditure 15 Teachers: Training 31 Public Sector: Land 16 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 31 Travellers 16 Energy: Meters 31 2 Tuesday, 13 January 2015 Daily Report Fracking 31 Ambulance Services: East Green Climate Fund 32 Midlands 54 International Climate Fund
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House of Commons
    Parliamentary Information List BRIEFING PAPER 04637a 21 August 2015 Speakers of the House of Commons Speaker Date Constituency Notes Peter de Montfort 1258 − William Trussell 1327 − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Styled 'Procurator' Henry Beaumont 1332 (Mar) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Sir Geoffrey Le Scrope 1332 (Sep) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Probably Chief Justice. William Trussell 1340 − William Trussell 1343 − Appeared for the Commons alone. William de Thorpe 1347-1348 − Probably Chief Justice. Baron of the Exchequer, 1352. William de Shareshull 1351-1352 − Probably Chief Justice. Sir Henry Green 1361-1363¹ − Doubtful if he acted as Speaker. All of the above were Presiding Officers rather than Speakers Sir Peter de la Mare 1376 − Sir Thomas Hungerford 1377 (Jan-Mar) Wiltshire The first to be designated Speaker. Sir Peter de la Mare 1377 (Oct-Nov) Herefordshire Sir James Pickering 1378 (Oct-Nov) Westmorland Sir John Guildesborough 1380 Essex Sir Richard Waldegrave 1381-1382 Suffolk Sir James Pickering 1383-1390 Yorkshire During these years the records are defective and this Speaker's service might not have been unbroken. Sir John Bussy 1394-1398 Lincolnshire Beheaded 1399 Sir John Cheyne 1399 (Oct) Gloucestershire Resigned after only two days in office. John Dorewood 1399 (Oct-Nov) Essex Possibly the first lawyer to become Speaker. Sir Arnold Savage 1401(Jan-Mar) Kent Sir Henry Redford 1402 (Oct-Nov) Lincolnshire Sir Arnold Savage 1404 (Jan-Apr) Kent Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct-Nov) Devonshire Or Esturmy Sir John Tiptoft 1406 Huntingdonshire Created Baron Tiptoft, 1426.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2
    1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2. Malik Ben Achour, PS, Belgium 3. Tina Acketoft, Liberal Party, Sweden 4. Senator Fatima Ahallouch, PS, Belgium 5. Lord Nazir Ahmed, Non-affiliated, United Kingdom 6. Senator Alberto Airola, M5S, Italy 7. Hussein al-Taee, Social Democratic Party, Finland 8. Éric Alauzet, La République en Marche, France 9. Patricia Blanquer Alcaraz, Socialist Party, Spain 10. Lord John Alderdice, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom 11. Felipe Jesús Sicilia Alférez, Socialist Party, Spain 12. Senator Alessandro Alfieri, PD, Italy 13. François Alfonsi, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (France) 14. Amira Mohamed Ali, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Group, Die Linke, Germany 15. Rushanara Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 16. Tahir Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 17. Mahir Alkaya, Spokesperson for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Socialist Party, the Netherlands 18. Senator Josefina Bueno Alonso, Socialist Party, Spain 19. Lord David Alton of Liverpool, Crossbench, United Kingdom 20. Patxi López Álvarez, Socialist Party, Spain 21. Nacho Sánchez Amor, S&D, European Parliament (Spain) 22. Luise Amtsberg, Green Party, Germany 23. Senator Bert Anciaux, sp.a, Belgium 24. Rt Hon Michael Ancram, the Marquess of Lothian, Former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Conservative Party, United Kingdom 25. Karin Andersen, Socialist Left Party, Norway 26. Kirsten Normann Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 27. Theresa Berg Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 28. Rasmus Andresen, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (Germany) 29. Lord David Anderson of Ipswich QC, Crossbench, United Kingdom 30. Barry Andrews, Renew Europe, European Parliament (Ireland) 31. Chris Andrews, Sinn Féin, Ireland 32. Eric Andrieu, S&D, European Parliament (France) 33.
    [Show full text]
  • Stapylton Final Version
    1 THE PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM FROM ARREST, 1603–1629 Keith A. T. Stapylton UCL Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Page 2 DECLARATION I, Keith Anthony Thomas Stapylton, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed Page 3 ABSTRACT This thesis considers the English parliamentary privilege of freedom from arrest (and other legal processes), 1603-1629. Although it is under-represented in the historiography, the early Stuart Commons cherished this particular privilege as much as they valued freedom of speech. Previously one of the privileges requested from the monarch at the start of a parliament, by the seventeenth century freedom from arrest was increasingly claimed as an ‘ancient’, ‘undoubted’ right that secured the attendance of members, and safeguarded their honour, dignity, property, and ‘necessary’ servants. Uncertainty over the status and operation of the privilege was a major contemporary issue, and this prompted key questions for research. First, did ill definition of the constitutional relationship between the crown and its prerogatives, and parliament and its privileges, lead to tensions, increasingly polemical attitudes, and a questioning of the royal prerogative? Where did sovereignty now lie? Second, was it important to maximise the scope of the privilege, if parliament was to carry out its business properly? Did ad hoc management of individual privilege cases nevertheless have the cumulative effect of enhancing the authority and confidence of the Commons? Third, to what extent was the exploitation or abuse of privilege an unintended consequence of the strengthening of the Commons’ authority in matters of privilege? Such matters are not treated discretely, but are embedded within chapters that follow a thematic, broadly chronological approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Z675928x Margaret Hodge Mp 06/10/2011 Z9080283 Lorely
    Z675928X MARGARET HODGE MP 06/10/2011 Z9080283 LORELY BURT MP 08/10/2011 Z5702798 PAUL FARRELLY MP 09/10/2011 Z5651644 NORMAN LAMB 09/10/2011 Z236177X ROBERT HALFON MP 11/10/2011 Z2326282 MARCUS JONES MP 11/10/2011 Z2409343 CHARLOTTE LESLIE 12/10/2011 Z2415104 CATHERINE MCKINNELL 14/10/2011 Z2416602 STEPHEN MOSLEY 18/10/2011 Z5957328 JOAN RUDDOCK MP 18/10/2011 Z2375838 ROBIN WALKER MP 19/10/2011 Z1907445 ANNE MCINTOSH MP 20/10/2011 Z2408027 IAN LAVERY MP 21/10/2011 Z1951398 ROGER WILLIAMS 21/10/2011 Z7209413 ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL 24/10/2011 Z2423448 NIGEL MILLS MP 24/10/2011 Z2423360 BEN GUMMER MP 25/10/2011 Z2423633 MIKE WEATHERLEY MP 25/10/2011 Z5092044 GERAINT DAVIES MP 26/10/2011 Z2425526 KARL TURNER MP 27/10/2011 Z242877X DAVID MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2414680 JAMES MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2428399 PHILLIP LEE MP 31/10/2011 Z2429528 IAN MEARNS MP 31/10/2011 Z2329673 DR EILIDH WHITEFORD MP 31/10/2011 Z9252691 MADELEINE MOON MP 01/11/2011 Z2431014 GAVIN WILLIAMSON MP 01/11/2011 Z2414601 DAVID MOWAT MP 02/11/2011 Z2384782 CHRISTOPHER LESLIE MP 04/11/2011 Z7322798 ANDREW SLAUGHTER 05/11/2011 Z9265248 IAN AUSTIN MP 08/11/2011 Z2424608 AMBER RUDD MP 09/11/2011 Z241465X SIMON KIRBY MP 10/11/2011 Z2422243 PAUL MAYNARD MP 10/11/2011 Z2261940 TESSA MUNT MP 10/11/2011 Z5928278 VERNON RODNEY COAKER MP 11/11/2011 Z5402015 STEPHEN TIMMS MP 11/11/2011 Z1889879 BRIAN BINLEY MP 12/11/2011 Z5564713 ANDY BURNHAM MP 12/11/2011 Z4665783 EDWARD GARNIER QC MP 12/11/2011 Z907501X DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI MP 12/11/2011 Z728149X JOHN ROBERTSON MP 12/11/2011 Z5611939 CHRIS
    [Show full text]