I***R********************************************************** Reproductions Supplied by EDI Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Train Drivers ’ Daniel Davis on How to Change Your Community in Three Minutes; Dave Tyson on the Norwich Banner; and Gregor Gall on Blacklisting Union Since 1880
ASLEFJOURNAL JULY 2019 The magazine of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen Going Underground Meet me by the entrance of the Tube – District 8 special report plus The train drivers ’ Daniel Davis on how to change your community in three minutes; Dave Tyson on the Norwich banner; and Gregor Gall on blacklisting union since 1880 GS Mick Whelan ASLEF’s on track ASLEFJOURNAL JULY 2019 The magazine of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen for a diverse and modern railway E HAVE only just W returned from the Mick: ‘Our most diverse AAD first report we’ve had in our 139 year showed the history but there is still a long industry in a way to go before the employers bad light’ have systems in place that encourage proper career mapping and are truly reflective of the communities in which we live 7 and work. 10 In 2012 we published the first On Track with Diversity report which revealed the rail industry News to have very low numbers of women, young, l GTR under fire for ‘false’ passenger poster 4 and black and minority ethnic drivers. We used that report to hit every HR director’s desk and l Susan Calman on her specialist subject – 5 say, ‘We have membership density in this trains – plus Simon Armitage, Roger Scruton, industry in the very high nineties but can only Tim Finch and Neil Jordan go Off the Rails recruit as members the drivers you employ.’ The situation was compounded by the McNulty l New report: On Track With Diversity 2019 6 Report and a Tory government which tried to l Tube drivers’ pay offer is not good enough 7 blame the unions for the lack of diversity on the grounds of ‘flexibility’ – the same government l Soham rail explosion heroes remembered 8 12 which, when asked by us to introduce an Features equalities impact assessment before awarding a franchise, refused. -
Transparency Report
Transparency Report Transparency Report Government’s land and property disposals in 2015-16 and 2016-17 April 2018 1 Transparency Report 2 Transparency Report Transparency Report Government’s land and property disposals in 2015-16 and 2016-17 April 2018 3 Transparency Report © Crown copyright 2013 Produced by Cabinet Office You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from: [email protected] 4 Transparency Report Contents Introduction 7 Policy context 8 Land sales headlines 9 Details of assets sold 10 Appendix 1: Disposals guidance 82 Appendix 2: Transparency Review 82 Appendix 3: Glossary of terms 83 5 Transparency Report 6 Transparency Report Introduction The disposal of surplus government owned property is an important part of the Government’s drive to improve its estate management and create an efficient, fit-for-purpose and sustainable estate that meets future needs. This means disposing of surplus land and buildings in a way that delivers value for the taxpayer, boosts growth and delivers new homes. The Government has committed to freeing up land with capacity for at least 160,000 homes by 2020 and raising at least £5 billion from land and property disposals by 2020. -
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoab Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 7619623
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) dr section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages, This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. -
The Implications for Planning and Regeneration in the Capital
Localism in London The implications for planning and regeneration in the Capital Anna Turley and Joanna Wilson March 2012 With the support of Portland Communications Research Overview This report is part of a research programme that Future of London is undertaking into the implications of the government’s localism agenda for the Capital. This research has a particular focus on regeneration, planning and service delivery. In the course of this research, we have undertaken a number of interviews with high level practitioners within London Boroughs and the Greater London Authority. The programme consists of three research seminars, each featuring over 25 participants from local authority planning and regeneration departments. We have also conducted a survey of around 50 senior local authority planning and regeneration officers. Defining the Localism Agenda Throughout this report we refer to the ‘localism agenda’. This refers to a broad range of initiatives and reforms by Government. In many senses, the Localism Act, which became legislation in November 2011, is at the centre of this broader agenda, but the measures contained within it do not represent the full programme of reform that the Government has embarked upon. For the purposes of this report, the localism agenda is taken to mean those reforms contained within the Localism Act, the draft National Planning Policy Framework and the emerging Local Government Finance Bill, which was at House of Commons Report stage at time of writing. It also includes specific new initiatives that are not included in the Act, such as Local Enterprise Partnerships and Enterprise Zones. About the Authors and Acknowledgements Anna Turley is an Associate at Future of London. -
Coalition Government and Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom
This is a repository copy of Inaction and Reaction – Coalition Government and Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/87072/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Matthews, F. (2015) Inaction and Reaction – Coalition Government and Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom. British Politics. ISSN 1746-9198 https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2015.34 “This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in British Politics. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Matthews, F. (2015) Inaction and Reaction – Coalition Government and Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom. British Politics is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bp.2015.34 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Inaction and Reaction – Coalition Government and Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom Felicity Matthews Department of Politics University of Sheffield Sheffield, S10 2TU [email protected] Abstract Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom is a story frequently framed around the narratives of missed opportunities, executive intransigence and institutional stickiness. -
The New Right Think Tanks and Policy Change in the Uk
THE NEW RIGHT THINK TANKS AND POLICY CHANGE IN THE UK Andrew James Tesseyman DPhil Thesis University of York Politics Department Submitted, February 1999 Abstract It has often been claimed that, during the 1980s and early 1990s, the new right think tanks — namely the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), and Adam Smith Institute (ASI) — had a major impact on policy-making and policy change. This thesis addresses such claims by examining three reforms in which the new right think tanks have been attributed an influence — bus deregulation, education reform, and prison privatisation. It seeks not only to empirically assess their impact, but also to relate these findings to the policy-making literature, in particular the Rhodes Model which emphasises policy continuity and the Advocacy Coalition Framework which seeks to explain policy change. It is argued that the new right think tanks had an impact on all three policy changes, as members of "advocacy coalitions", although the nature and extent of this impact varied. In some cases, the TEA, CPS, and ASI were able to have a direct impact on policy change, obtaining access to policy-makers through coalition allies. In other cases their impact was indirect, in shaping the broader "climate of ideas". The new right think tanks also contributed to new patterns of policy formulation, although there is limited evidence of any long-term structural impact on policy-making in these areas. It is also argued that the case studies raise a number of issues for the Rhodes Model and the Advocacy Coalition Framework, although these could be addressed by integrating the two to develop an approach to account for both policy continuity and policy change. -
Give and Take: How Conservatives Think About Welfare
How conservatives think about w elfare Ryan Shorthouse and David Kirkby GIVE AND TAKE How conservatives think about welfare Ryan Shorthouse and David Kirkby The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. Bright Blue is an independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism. Bright Blue takes complete responsibility for the views expressed in this publication, and these do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. Director: Ryan Shorthouse Chair: Matthew d’Ancona Members of the board: Diane Banks, Philip Clarke, Alexandra Jezeph, Rachel Johnson First published in Great Britain in 2014 by Bright Blue Campaign ISBN: 978-1-911128-02-1 www.brightblue.org.uk Copyright © Bright Blue Campaign, 2014 Contents About the authors 4 Acknowledgements 5 Executive summary 6 1 Introduction 19 2 Methodology 29 3 How conservatives think about benefit claimants 34 4 How conservatives think about the purpose of welfare 53 5 How conservatives think about the sources of welfare 66 6 Variation amongst conservatives 81 7 Policies to improve the welfare system 96 Annex one: Roundtable attendee list 112 Annex two: Polling questions 113 Annex three: Questions and metrics used for social and economic conservative classification 121 About the authors Ryan Shorthouse Ryan is the Founder and Director of Bright Blue. -
Member Since 1979 191
RESEARCH PAPER 09/31 Members since 1979 20 APRIL 2009 This Research Paper provides a complete list of all Members who have served in the House of Commons since the general election of 1979, together with basic biographical and parliamentary data. The Library and the House of Commons Information Office are frequently asked for such information and this Paper is based on the data we collate from published sources to assist us in responding. Since this Paper is produced part way through the 2005 Parliament, a subsequent edition will be prepared after its dissolution to create a full record of its MPs. The cut off date for the material in this edition is 31 March 2009. Please note that a new edition of this Research Paper is now available entitled: Members 1979-2010 [RP10/33] Oonagh Gay PARLIAMENT AND CONSTITUTION CENTRE HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 09/16 Saving Gateway Accounts Bill: Committee Stage Report 24.02.09 09/17 Autism Bill [Bill 10 of 2008-09] 25.02.09 09/18 Northern Ireland Bill [Bill 62 of 2008-09] 02.03.09 09/19 Small Business Rate Relief (Automatic Payment) Bill [Bill 13 of 03.03.09 2008-09] 09/20 Economic Indicators, March 2009 04.03.09 09/21 Statutory Redundancy Pay (Amendment) Bill [Bill 12 of 2008-09] 11.03.09 09/22 Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill [Bill 70 of 2008-09] 12.03.09 09/23 Welfare Reform Bill: Committee Stage Report 13.03.09 09/24 Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of 17.03.09 Discrimination) Bill [Bill 29 of 2008-09] 09/25 Fuel Poverty Bill -
Assessing Urban Citizenship in the Context of Municipal Restructuring
Assessing Urban Citizenship in the Context of Municipal Restructuring: The Case of Women in London and Toronto ABSTRACT: This paper is among the first to assess the urban citizenship implications of disparate metropolitan governance changes. Using the concept of citizen representation as its main conceptual anchor, the study examines longitudinal patterns in London and Toronto, two cities that underwent divergent institutional and political leadership experiences during the late 1990s and following. The empirical analysis addresses three dimensions of citizen representation in each location: the election of women to urban public office, the status of city “femocracies,” and the inclusion of feminist discourse in official spatial plans. It reports women’s citizenship status according to all three measures was considerably more robust under the GLA arrangement in London than the amalgamation scheme in Toronto. Within cities, representation on two of the three measures declined over time in both London and Toronto. The study concludes that institutional and leadership shifts can hold immediate and meaningful consequences for urban citizenship. Prepared for Canadian Political Science Association Meetings, University of Western Ontario, June 2005 © Sylvia Bashevkin 2005 1 Assessing Urban Citizenship in the Context of Municipal Restructuring: The Case of Women in London and Toronto* Introduction Social scientists are rarely able to conduct their research under such laboratory-like experimental conditions. Two large cities evolve in stable, Westminster-style, parliamentary systems. Each metropolitan area holds roughly 15 percent of the respective country’s total population, and receives annually about half of its new immigrants (Buck et al., 2002: 141; Anisef and Lanphier, 2003: 3). -
Citizen Participation Initiatives and Models in Large Cities’
II International Congress on Citizen Participation in Large Cities: ‘CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INITIATIVES AND MODELS IN LARGE CITIES’ Wednesday, 16 - Thursday 17 of November 2005 PALACIO MUNICIPAL DE CONGRESOS – CAMPO DE LAS NACIONES, MADRID Paper title: Citizen Participation in English Local Government: Is London Leading the Way? Dr Colin Copus Senior Lecturer in Local Politics The Institute of Local Government Studies School of Public Policy The University of Birmingham 0121.414.4988 [email protected] CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT: IS LONDON LEADING THE WAY? Introduction The task of devising a system of government for London has had to balance two conflicting objectives. First, providing the capital with a system of government that recognises, and can direct, the unique political, economic, social and spatial power that the city has in England and Britain as a whole. Secondly, limiting and constraining the political power of London and its governing arrangements, to ensure neither could un- dermine the power of the national government, based as it is in London. Added to this dynamic has been the need to recognise that London is extremely difficult to contain within geographical boundaries drawn for political and administrative convenience, as the city’s economic and political power will spill over any artificially drawn boarders (Travers, 2004).1 Moreover, there remains the vexed question of balancing the needs of governing London as a whole and governing the communities within in it. The power and responsibilities of London-wide government has to be shared with smaller units of political authority grouped in such a way as to represent some common communities and interests – in this case the London Boroughs (Barlow, 1991).2 The current governing arrangements for London were introduced by the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which established a directly elected mayor for London and a Greater London Assembly of 25 elected members, which together constitute the Greater London Authority. -
Lgbt Rights in Contemporary Global Politics
/*%75,*+76,1&217(0325$5<*/2%$/32/,7,&612506 ,'(17,7<$1'7+(32/,7,&62)5,*+76 E\ %UHWW5HPNXV%ULWW $GLVVHUWDWLRQVXEPLWWHGWRWKH)DFXOW\RIWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI'HODZDUHLQ SDUWLDOIXOILOOPHQWRIWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUWKHGHJUHHRI'RFWRURI3KLORVRSK\LQ 3ROLWLFDO6FLHQFHDQG,QWHUQDWLRQDO5HODWLRQV 6XPPHU %UHWW5HPNXV%ULWW $OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG ProQuest Number: 3730243 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. ProQuest 3730243 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor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
Download Original Attachment
MAKING LONDON SAFER 1 We are lucky to live in the greatest city on earth. But after ten years of a Labour government, and eight years of a Labour Mayor, we need to stop kidding ourselves about crime. We have a Home Secretary who says she is frightened to walk the streets of Peckham. We have had 27 teenagers murdered by other kids in 2007. We have seen a steady and undisputed rise in robbery, violence against the person and other violent crimes.1 And we all know that we are suffering from an epidemic of unreported crime. Bitter experience has taught us that too often the police do not have the time or the resources to deal with our case. So what can we do? We could perhaps shrug our shoulders and say that crime, disorder and incivility are just a part of city life. We could turn a blind eye to the robberies and the muggings, and hope that no one we love will be a victim. We could throw up our hands, in the manner of the current Labour Mayor, and say that these problems are beyond our control – caused by television and the glamorising of violence. We could accept defeat. We could declare that we have run out of ideas. Or we could say that enough is enough. The Mayor of London has a statutory and moral duty to lead the fight-back against crime. I reject the fatalism and defeatism of the Labour Mayor. I reject the assumption that we can do nothing. I believe that by systematically tackling small crimes we can drive out more serious crime.