DOCSLIB.ORG

2009 European Election Results for London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2009 European Election Results for London 2009 European election results for London Data Management and Analysis Group 2009 European election results for London DMAG Briefing 2009-07 July 2009 Gareth Piggott ISSN 1479-7879 DMAG Briefing 2009-07 1 2009 European election results for London DMAG Briefing 2009-07 July 2009 2009 European election results for London For more information please contact: Gareth Piggott Data Management and Analysis Group Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 7983 4327 e-mail: [email protected] Copyright © Greater London Authority, 2009 Source of all data: Regional Returning Officers All maps are © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. (Greater London Authority) (LA100032379) (2009) Data can be made available in other formats on request In some charts in this report colours that are associated with political parties are used. Printing in black and white, can make those charts hard to read. ISSN 1479-7879 This briefing is printed on at least 70 per cent recycled paper. The paper is suitable for recycling. 2 DMAG Briefing 2009-07 2009 European election results for London List of tables, charts and maps Page Turnout Map 1 Turnout 2009, by borough 5 Map 2 Change in turnout 2004-2009, by borough 5 Result Table 3 Summary of election results 1999-2009, London 5 Table 4 Order of winning seats, London 2009 6 Figure 5 Shares of votes, 2009, London and UK 7 Figure 6 Share of vote for main parties by UK region, 2009 8 London voting trends 1999-2009 Figure 7 Share of votes for main parties, UK 1999 to 2009 8 Figure 8 Share of votes for main parties, London 1999 to 2009 9 Figure 9 Total votes for main parties, London 1999 to 2009 9 Party performance Map 10 Conservative share 2009, by borough 10 Map 11 Change in Conservative share 2004-2009, by borough 10 Map 12 Labour share 2009, by borough 11 Map 13 Change in Labour share 2004-2009, by borough 11 Map 14 Liberal Democrats share 2009, by borough 11 Map 15 Change in Liberal Democrats share 2004-2009, by borough 11 Map 16 Green Party share 2009, by borough 13 Map 17 Change in Green Party share 2004-2009, by borough 13 Map 18 UKIP share 2009, by borough 13 Map 19 Change in UKIP share 2004-2009, by borough 13 Map 20 BNP share 2009, by borough 14 Map 21 Change in BNP share 2004-2009, by borough 14 Detailed tables Table 22 Share of votes by borough, 2009 16 Table 23 Share of votes by borough, 2004 17 Table 24 Summary of party votes with share, 2004 and 2009 18 Table 25 Summary of party votes, UK and London, 2009 19 Appendices Appendix Table A1 Candidates in London 20 Appendix Map A2 The London boroughs 22 DMAG Briefing 2009-07 3 2009 European election results for London The 2009 European Election The European Parliamentary Election took place on 4 June 2009 in the UK. The results were announced on 7 June to coincide with the other results around Europe. Over 15 million UK residents voted in the election, while around 1.75 million Londoners voted. Initial results were published on the Regional Returning Officer’s website, and this briefing gives further detail of the results, and compares them with those from recent European elections. Voting data for each of the London boroughs and the City are available, though unlike 2004, there is no ward data available. This is simply because in 2004 there were other elections taking place on the same day that required ward data to be collected, but in 2009, when the election was the only one running on that day, there was no reason to collect this data. Indeed, London is a single constituency in this election. In 2004 London’s representation reduced from ten to nine seats from 1999, and in 2009, it reduced further to eight seats. In England, Scotland and Wales the voting system for the European elections is proportional representation - regional closed list. This means that political parties put forward names of candidates in rank order, the number of candidates being no more than the number of seats allowed for each region. In each region the allocated seats are awarded using a quota system. The quota is the total number of votes received by a party or independent candidate divided by the number of seats already gained in that region plus one. Further details of nominated candidates and parties are listed at the back in Table A1. Turnout Turnout for the election in London was 33.5 per cent - just slightly lower than the UK overall (34.7 per cent). The highest turnouts at a regional level were in Northern Ireland (42.8 per cent), South West (39.0 per cent) and the East of England (38.0 per cent), while the lowest were in Scotland (28.6 per cent), Wales (30.5 per cent) and the North East (30.5 per cent). The London turnout was down on the 2004 figure of 37.6 per cent, but much higher than in 1999 when it was just 23.0 per cent. There were around 134,000 fewer voters from London than 2004 (eight per cent down), though that was expected since the 2009 European election did not take place at the same time as other elections, as it did in 2004. The highest poll was in Richmond (41.5 per cent), while four other boroughs were over 38 per cent - Harrow, Barnet, Kingston and Merton. The lowest was in Newham (27.3 per cent), followed by Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea (Map 1). Kensington and Chelsea (minus eight percentage points), Westminster and Tower Hamlets (both minus seven points) and had the biggest drop in turnout compared with the previous election (Map 2). These boroughs have both diverse and mobile populations, and this could have affected turnout in certain areas. Barking and Dagenham was the only borough to have an increase in turnout, even though the increase was very small (0.1 per cent), while Islington’s poll barely altered. 4 DMAG Briefing 2009-07 2009 European election results for London Maps 1 and 2 Turnout 2009 and change in turnout 2004-2009, by borough NB A labelled borough map can be found at the back in Map A2 Result The Conservatives had the highest share of the vote at 27 per cent, and they gained three seats, the same as 2004, though their share increased slightly over the previous election. The only change in seats won, compared with 2004, was by the Labour party who lost a seat (there was no gain to balance this out due to the loss of one seat in the London region) (Table 3). Labour’s share fell in 2009 by 3.5 percentage points to 21 per cent, while the Liberal Democrats’ share fell by two percentage points to 14 per cent. The Green Party share increased again, as it did between 1999 and 2004, though they remain with one seat. UKIP also kept one seat even though their share decreased by 1.5 percentage points. Table 3 Summary of election results 1999-2009, London 2009 2004 1999 Votes % Seats % Seats % Seats Conservative Party 479,037 27.4 3 26.8 3 32.7 4 Labour Party 372,590 21.3 2 24.7 3 35.0 4 Liberal Democrats 240,156 13.7 1 15.3 1 11.7 1 Green Party 190,589 10.9 1 8.4 1 7.7 1 UKIP 188,440 10.8 1 12.3 1 5.4 0 Others 280,214 16.0 0 12.4 0 7.5 0 Total 1,751,026 100 8 100 9 100 10 DMAG Briefing 2009-07 5 6 Table 4 Order of winning seats, London 2009 London for electionresults 2009 European Jan Liberal Janan- Elected Elected Party Conservative Labour Democrat Green UKIP BNP CPA ayagam Others party candidate Votes 479,307 372,590 240,156 190,589 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Conservative Charles Tannock (M) Elected round 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 239,654 372,590 240,156 190,589 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Labour Claude Moraes (M) Elected round 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 239,654 186,295 240,156 190,589 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Liberal Democrat Sarah Ludford (F) Elected round 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 239,654 186,295 120,078 190,589 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Conservative Syed Salah Kamall (M) Elected round 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 159,769 186,295 120,078 190,589 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Green Jean Lambert (F) Elected round 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 159,769 186,295 120,078 95,295 188,440 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 UKIP Gerard Batten (M) Elected round 6 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 159,769 186,295 120,078 95,295 94,220 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Labour Mary Honeyball (F) Elected round 7 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 159,769 124,197 120,078 95,295 94,220 86,420 51,336 50,014 92,446 Conservative Marina Yannakoudakis (F) Elected round 8 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 NB Gender of the candidate shown in brackets after their name DMAG Briefing 2009-07 DMAG 2009 European election results for London The European elections are conducted on the basis of proportional representation within regions using a pure form of the d’Hondt formula (there was no lower limit on the percentage of the vote required to gain seats).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Opposition Policies on Identity Cards
    blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/04/15/opposition-policies-on-identity-cards/ Opposition policies on identity cards ID cards are a key point of difference between the main parties. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have pledged to scrap them, while Labour will continue with their plans to introduce them. The LSE Identity Project has been following developments in the UK’s Identity Policy since the early days of the Identity Cards Bill in 2005. Here, Dr Edgar A. Whitley and Dr Gus Hosein from the LSE Identity Project analyse the Labour Party’s manifesto comment on identity cards. Of the published manifestos, so far only the Labour party intends to continue with identity cards for UK nationals. Details of identity card policies for all other published manifestos (as of 14 April 2010) are listed below (alphabetically): • The Alliance Party (NI) would be sceptical towards ID cards; • The Alliance for Green Socialism will “scrap ID cards and databases of personal information”; • The British National Party “reject ID cards” • The Communist Party calls for “an end to prolonged detention without charge, house arrest and plans for ID cards and full restoration of the rights of assembly, protest and free speech”; • The Conservative Party argues that “Labour’s approach to our personal privacy is the worst of all worlds – intrusive, ineffective and enormously expensive” and states that they will “scrap ID cards, the National Identity Register and the Contactpoint database”; • The Democratic Unionist Party believes that “Plans to introduce ID cards should be scrapped” because “they are too expensive and will not tackle terrorism or illegal immigration” • The Green Party will not have ID cards which “are an unnecessary invasion of our privacy and will do nothing to prevent crime and terrorism”.
    [Show full text]
  • South Scotland Election Agents
    OFFICIAL Scottish Parliamentary Notice of Appointment of Election Agents and Sub-Agents Election Region SOUTH SCOTLAND Date of poll Thursday 6 May 2021 The following is a notice of Election Agents appointed by Parties and Individual Candidates in the election of Members of the Scottish Parliament for the above Region. I, Lorna Meahan, Depute Regional Returning Officer, hereby give notice that the following names of Election Agents of Parties and Individual candidates at this election, and the addresses of the offices of such Election Agents to which all claims, notices, writs, summons, and other documents addressed to them may be sent, have respectively been declared in writing to me as follows: Name of Party Name of Agent Offices of Election Agent to which claims etc may be sent Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party John Mortimer Flat 2/2, 2 Rhynie Drive, Glasgow, G51 2LE Alba Party Isabella Zambonini 42 Market Street, Ellon, Aberdeenshire, AB41 9JD All for Unity James Giles Suite 2, Fullarton House, 4 Fullarton Street, Ayr, KA7 1UB Freedom Alliance- Integrity, Society, Economy Mary Steven 9 Ralston Road, Barrhead, East Renfrewshire, G78 2QQ Independent Green Voice Alistair McConnachie Clyde Offices, 2nd Floor, 48 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 1BP Reform UK Martyn Greene 7/9 North St David Street, Edinburgh, EH2 1AW Scotia Future Charles Brodie 23 Maybole Road, Ayr, KA7 2PZ Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Mark McInnes 67 Northumberland Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6JG Scottish Family Party Michael Willis 29 Coney Park, Stirling,
    [Show full text]
  • Cornishness and Englishness: Nested Identities Or Incompatible Ideologies?
    CORNISHNESS AND ENGLISHNESS: NESTED IDENTITIES OR INCOMPATIBLE IDEOLOGIES? Bernard Deacon (International Journal of Regional and Local History 5.2 (2009), pp.9-29) In 2007 I suggested in the pages of this journal that the history of English regional identities may prove to be ‘in practice elusive and insubstantial’.1 Not long after those words were written a history of the north east of England was published by its Centre for Regional History. Pursuing the question of whether the north east was a coherent and self-conscious region over the longue durée, the editors found a ‘very fragile history of an incoherent and barely self-conscious region’ with a sense of regional identity that only really appeared in the second half of the twentieth century.2 If the north east, widely regarded as the most coherent English region, lacks a historical identity then it is likely to be even more illusory in other regions. Although rigorously testing the past existence of a regional discourse and finding it wanting, Green and Pollard’s book also reminds us that history is not just about scientific accounts of the past. They recognise that history itself is ‘an important element in the construction of the region … Memory of the past is deployed, selectively and creatively, as one means of imagining it … We choose the history we want, to show the kind of region we want to be’.3 In the north east that choice has seemingly crystallised around a narrative of industrialization focused on the coalfield and the gradual imposition of a Tyneside hegemony over the centuries following 1650.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Party Registration Decisions-English Version
    2018 Party registration decisions Decisions by the Commission to approve or reject applied for party names, descriptions and emblems in date order You can find the current registration details of the applicants by clicking on their name An overview of the rules on registering a political party names, descriptions and emblems can be found here Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which part decision rejection applied of the UK? for 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party All of Great Approve Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Scotland for Both Unions: All of Great Approve UK Europe Britain 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Description Together we are all All of Great Reject Does not meet the requirements of strongest Britain a description 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Emblem All of Great Reject Confusingly similar to another Britain already registered party 10.12.18 Both Unions Party Name Both Unions Party of Northern Approve Northern Ireland Ireland 10.12.18 Ein Gwlad Name Ein Gwlad Wales Reject Application incomplete 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description Future Shepton – Working England Approve together for Shepton 10.12.18 Future Shepton Description A fresh approach with Future England Approve Shepton 1 Decisions on party registration applications made in 2018 Type of Application Identity Date of The identity mark applied applies to Registration Further information/ Reason for Applicant name Mark decision for which
    [Show full text]
  • Join Us to Celebrate England's Birthday in Malmesbury This July
    Newsletter ISSUE No. 20 June 2019 Inside this Issue Surprise as Judge Refuses to Hear Tilbrook -Surprise as Judge Refuses to Brexit Exit Case hear Brexit Exit Case p1 -Celebrate England’s Birthday A single Judge has said that the that Mr Tilbrook was probably right in his this July with ED p1 Tilbrook case does not merit being assessment. -Write for EV p1 heard. He considered the papers and Not unusual -Brown Bullies England Again p2 refused permission. It is important to remember that at nearly Deadline to appeal every stage of the Gina Miller legal case -Two things the Gov’t don’t want English Democrat Chairman Robin they had to appeal against the initial you to know about Barnett p2 Tilbrook stated:’ Our Application to findings which were usually negative. -NSS Reserach Reveals Appeal the Refusal of Permission was This case has a right to be heard and the Unstunned Meat Widespread in safely issued in time despite the Order Judge not allowing a full court case marks UK Supermarkets p3 being made on almost the only day another nail in the coffin of the idea that we -Editorial p3 which, had I not had my post checked have an impartial and unbiased justice -Join Us to write the Draft daily, could have made me miss the system in the UK. Constitution for England p4 deadline because I was away on holiday Important Point - English Democrats FightsTwo for two weeks’. (There is an extremely What this case does highlight very well is Further Cases: Electoral tight time period following decisions the problems caused by not having a Commission; Facebook made at this level (no merit)for written Constitution; the abolition (under applicants to appeal The time starts Blair of the important role of Lord p4 when the decision is made and not when Chancellor; and the dire state of the -future events p4 the decision is received.editor) Judicial system in England where Setbacks expected competence is sacrificed on the altar of Do You Want to Write For Respected Emeritus Profssor Alan Sked political correctness.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Election Results 2009
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FOR THE EASTERN REGION 4TH JUNE 2009 STATEMENT UNDER RULE 56(1)(b) OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS RULES 2004 I, David Monks, hereby give notice that at the European Parliamentary Election in the Eastern Region held on 4th June 2009 — 1. The number of votes cast for each Party and individual Candidate was — Party or Individual Candidate No. of Votes 1. Animals Count 13,201 2. British National Party – National Party – Protecting British Jobs 97,013 3. Christian Party ―Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship‖ The Christian Party – CPA 24,646 4. Conservative Party 500,331 5. English Democrats Party – English Democrats – ―Putting England First!‖ 32,211 6. Jury Team 6,354 7. Liberal Democrats 221,235 8. NO2EU:Yes to Democracy 13,939 9 Pro Democracy: Libertas.EU 9,940 10. Social Labour Party (Leader Arthur Scargill) 13,599 11. The Green Party 141,016 12. The Labour Party 167,833 13. United Kingdom First 38,185 14. United Kingdom Independence Party – UKIP 313,921 15. Independent (Peter E Rigby) 9,916 2. The number of votes rejected was: 13,164 3. The number of votes which each Party or Candidate had after the application of subsections (4) to (9) of Section 2 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, was — Stage Party or Individual Candidate Votes Allocation 1. Conservative 500331 First Seat 2. UKIP 313921 Second Seat 3. Conservative 250165 Third Seat 4. Liberal Democrat 221235 Fourth Seat 5. Labour Party 167833 Fifth Seat 6. Conservative 166777 Sixth Seat 7. UKIP 156960 Seventh Seat 4. The seven Candidates elected for the Eastern Region are — Name Address Party 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • C (1003-1005) D (1006-1011)
    B Country code (1001-1002) EB81.3 B C our survey number (1003-1005) EB81.3 C D Interview number (1006-1011) EB81.3 D D11: NO "NO ANSWER" ALLOWED D11 How old are you? (1012-1013) EB81.3 D11 EB0817UKXTRA 1/44 3/06/2014 ASK THE WHOLE QUESTIONNAIRE ONLY IF LEGALLY ABLE TO VOTE (18+ EXCEPT 16+ IN AT) Q1: CODE 29 CANNOT BE THE ONLY ANSWER OTHERWISE CLOSE THE INTERVIEW Q1: CODE 30 IS EXCLUSIVE Q1: IF CODE 30 THEN CLOSE INTERVIEW Q1 What is your nationality? Please tell me the country(ies) that applies(y). (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE) (1034-1063) Belgium 1, Denmark 2, Germany 3, Greece 4, Spain 5, France 6, Ireland 7, Italy 8, Luxembourg 9, Netherlands 10, Portugal 11, United Kingdom (Great Britain, Northern Ireland) 12, Austria 13, Sweden 14, Finland 15, Republic of Cyprus 16, Czech Republic 17, Estonia 18, Hungary 19, Latvia 20, Lithuania 21, Malta 22, Poland 23, Slovakia 24, Slovenia 25, Bulgaria 26, Romania 27, Croatia 28, Other countries 29, DK 30, EB81.3 Q1 EB0817UKXTRA 2/44 3/06/2014 QP1 The European Parliament elections were held on the 22nd May 2014. For one reason or another, some people in the UK did not vote in these elections. Did you vote in the recent European Parliament elections? (SHOW SCREEN - SINGLE CODE) (1064) Voted 1 Did not vote 2 DK 3 EB71.3 QK1 EB0817UKXTRA 3/44 3/06/2014 ASK QP2 TO QP5a IF "VOTED", CODE 1 IN QP1 – OTHERS GO TO QP3b QP2 Which party did you vote for in the European Parliament elections? (SHOW SCREEN – READ OUT – SINGLE CODE) (1065-1066) Sinn Féin (SF) 1 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) 2 Ulster Unionist Party
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Election Agents’ Names and Offices
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION EASTERN REGION – 22 MAY 2014 NOTICE OF ELECTION AGENTS’ NAMES AND OFFICES I HEREBY GIVE NOTICE that the following names and addresses of election agents of parties and individual candidates at this election, and the addresses of the offices or places of such election agents to which all claims, notices, legal process, and other documents addressed to them may be sent, have respectively been declared in writing to me as follows:- Name of Party or Individual Name of Agent Offices of Election Agent to which Candidate claims etc. may be sent An Independence from Europe Paul Kevin Wiffen 9 Cedar Park Gardens, Romford, – UK Independence Now Essex RM1 4DS British National Party – Fighting Richard Andrew Perry Millhouse Hotel, Maldon Road, Unsustainable Housing Langford, Maldon, Essex CM9 4SS Because We Care Christian Peoples Alliance Carl Shaun Clark 41 Ripon Way Thetford Norfolk IP24 1DF Conservative Party – For real Alan Mabbutt 4 Matthew Parker Street change in Europe London SW1H 9HQ English Democrats – I’m Robin Charles Quires Green, Willingale, Essex English, NOT British, NOT William Tilbrook CM5 0QP EUropean! Green Party Grace Philip Anvil Rise, High Street, Hempstead, Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 2PD Labour Party Dan Simpson East of England Labour Party, 1 Whitehall Estate, Flex Meadow, Harlow, Essex CM19 5TP Liberal Democrats Ian Horner 15 Spruce Drive, Brandon, Suffolk IP27 0UT NO2EU – Yes to Workers’ Brian Denny 177 Western Road, Leigh-on-Sea, Rights Essex SS9 2PQ UK Independence Party (UKIP) Lisa Ann Duffy Unit 1, King Charles Business Park, Heathfield, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6UT Steve Packham Regional Returning Officer, Civic Centre, Duke Street, Chelmsford CM1 1JE Dated: 24 April 2014 Printed by the Regional Returning Officer, Civic Centre, Duke Street, Chelmsford CM1 1JE .
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploratory Case Study Focusing on the Creation, Orientation and Development of a New Political Brand; the Case of the Jury Team
    An exploratory case study focusing on the creation, orientation and development of a new political brand; The case of the Jury Team 1 Introduction Political marketing can be defined as the application of commercial marketing theories, concepts, orientations and tools to the political environment (O’Cass 2001; Speed et al. 2015). It has evolved significantly as a sub-discipline of marketing since the seminar work of Lock and Harris (1996) and now represents a sophisticated area of study “beyond the black arts of propaganda” (Harris and Lock 2010:297). Further, political marketing scholars have considered the marketing management process of intelligence gathering, objective setting and the implementation of political campaigns and programs to produce efficient and effective relationships between political entities and the electorate (O’Cass 2001; Ormrod and Henneberg 2011). However, despite progress made within the political marketing arena, more empirical understanding is needed as this will allow the sub-discipline to advance and continue to develop (Harris and Lock 2010). This includes a paucity of comparative studies within political marketing (Baines et al 2011; Ioannides 2010; O’Cass and Voola 2011; Smith and Speed 2011). Political marketing can only develop it if continues to apply new concepts or reapply advanced theories and frameworks (Speed et al. 2015). One area within political marketing that continues to offer a wealth of insight yet remains under-researched is the application of political branding (Harris and Lock 2010; Lock and Harris 1996; Nielsen 2016; Scammell 2015). Indeed, French and Smith (2010:460) argue that, “the concept of political parties as brands is now commonplace and part of a general dispersion of branding from its original, consumer marketing origins”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Prerogative Redefined. Parliamentary Debate on the Role
    JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative RedeÀned Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Historica-rakennuksen salissa H320 helmikuun 1. päivänä 2014 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Historica, hall H320, on February 1, 2014 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2014 The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2014 Editors Pasi Ihalainen Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Ville Korkiakangas Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Raimo Salokangas, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5592-2 ISBN 978-951-39-5592-2 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-5591-5 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 (nid.), 1459-4331 (PDF) Copyright © 2014, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2014 ABSTRACT Häkkinen, Teemu The Royal Prerogative Redefined.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence and Security After Brexit Understanding the Possible Implications of the UK’S Decision to Leave the EU Compendium Report
    Defence and security after Brexit Understanding the possible implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU Compendium report James Black, Alex Hall, Kate Cox, Marta Kepe, Erik Silfversten For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1786 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: HMS Vanguard (MoD/Crown copyright 2014); Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, A Chinook Helicopter of 18 Squadron, HMS Defender (MoD/Crown copyright 2016); Cyber Security at MoD (Crown copyright); Brexit (donfiore/fotolia); Heavily armed Police in London (davidf/iStock) RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope Defence and security after Brexit Preface This RAND study examines the potential defence and security implications of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’).
    [Show full text]