DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Campaign Spending at the 2009 European Parliamentary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Campaign Spending at the 2009 European Parliamentary Report on campaign spending at the 2009 European Parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and local elections in England March 2010 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission: Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] © The Electoral Commission 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 European Parliamentary election campaign expenditure by political parties 2 Overview 4 Great Britain expenditure 5 Party expenditure (per category) 14 Northern Ireland expenditure 19 3 European Parliamentary election controlled expenditure by recognised third parties 24 4 European Parliamentary election expenditure by individual candidates 26 5 Expenditure incurred during unitary and English county elections 27 Appendices Appendix A: Parties (including Northern Ireland) that contested the European Parliamentary elections in 2004 and 2009 28 Appendix B: Expenditure categories 30 1 Introduction 1.1 The Electoral Commission’s aim is to instill integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. One of our key objectives is to ensure integrity and transparency of party and election finance. We also have a statutory duty to report on elections.1 This report provides details and analysis of the campaign expenditure incurred by political parties, third parties and candidates at the June 2009 European Parliamentary elections and also candidates at local elections in England in 2009. 1.2 This report is informed by the political parties’ campaign expenditure returns, candidates’ election expenditure returns and previous reports2 published by the Commission on the European Parliamentary elections. 1.3 The report is divided into four sections. The first two sections outline the expenditure incurred by political parties and third parties, while the third section focuses on expenditure by individual candidates. The fourth section briefly looks at expenditure incurred at the English local elections. 1.4 Further information on the legislative context of the European elections, our legislative role, the controls on spending and a definition of campaign expenditure can be found on our website.3 1 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Parts V and VI. 2www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/47179/RevisedEuropeanExpen drep_18347-13541__E__N__S__W__.pdf. 3 www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis. 1 2 European Parliamentary election campaign expenditure by political parties 2.1 The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) regulates campaign expenditure at certain elections, including elections for the European Parliament. This is defined as any expenditure incurred by a party for electoral purposes; that is, for the purpose of enhancing the standing of or promoting the electoral success for a party at a forthcoming or future election. 2.2 The regulated period for European Parliamentary elections is four months, and for the 2009 elections it ran from 5 February until 4 June, polling day.4 The Electoral Commission published guidance on the rules for parties and independent candidates in advance of the election.5 2.3 In Great Britain there are separate limits for contesting the European Parliamentary elections in England, Scotland and Wales. For each region the limit is calculated as £45,000 multiplied by the number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) returned for that region as detailed in the table below. The expenditure limit for parties contesting all regions, excluding Northern Ireland, was £3,105,000. As European Parliamentary elections use a party list electoral system, the Great Britain expenditure limits apply to party spending only. This means there are no separate spending limits for party candidates. 2.4 When an individual runs as an independent candidate they are subject to controls equivalent to those of candidates from a party.6 This means that independent candidates will have an extremely high spending limit relative to the amount they are likely to spend. Individual candidates submit returns to their respective Returning Officer. 2.5 Following the election, political parties are required to submit a report to the Commission detailing all their campaign expenditure. The report must itemise each individual item of expenditure, with a breakdown of total expenditure incurred by reporting category and part of the UK. If the party incurred expenditure of £250,000 or less it must submit its report within three months of the date of the election poll. If a party spent more than £250,000 it must submit its report within six months of this date with an attached statement from an independent auditor. The deadlines for 2009 were 4 September and 4 December respectively. 2.6 Both the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and British National Party (BNP) received civil penalties for late submission of their respective campaign expenditure return as did the Roman Party – Ave! for not submitting a return. Other than these instances, all expenditure returns were sent to the Commission by the relevant deadlines. 4 www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure. 5 www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/71252/Campaign- Expenditure-2009-Guidance.pdf. 6 European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004. 2 Table 1: Regional campaign expenditure limits at the 2009 European Parliamentary elections Electoral area Number of Expenditure limit (£) MEPs East Midlands 5 225,000 Eastern 7 315,000 London 8 360,000 North East 3 135,000 North West 8 360,000 South East 10 450,000 South West (including 6 270,000 Gibraltar) West Midlands 6 270,000 Yorkshire & the Humber 6 270,000 England (9 regions) 59 2,655,000 Scotland 6 270,000 Wales 4 180,000 Northern Ireland 3 270,000* UK 72 3,375,0007 * Includes expenditure limit for candidates. 7 Limit if standing in all regions including Northern Ireland. 3 Overview 2.7 During the June 2009 European Parliamentary elections, 33 parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland incurred a total campaign expenditure of almost £9.78 million. This was more than £350,000 less than the total spent by the 32 parties standing in 2004 (£10.13 million). This does not include independent candidate spend (£78,154) which is covered separately.8 2.8 In England, Scotland and Wales,9 a total of 26 parties contested seats at the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, the same number as contested the 2004 elections. These 26 parties spent a total of just over £9 million, some £600k less than they spent in 2004. One potential reason for this lower spend is that the European Parliamentary elections have a combined regulated period with the forthcoming UK Parliamentary general election, meaning that any unspent expenditure below the limit is carried forward and added to the amount available to spend at the general election. 2.9 There was a diverse group of parties: from those who contested every seat in Great Britain, to those standing in just one region. Great Britain expenditure 2.10 Out of the 26 parties in Great Britain contesting the European Parliamentary elections, only 10 ran candidates in all 11 regions. This included the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, BNP, UKIP, the Socialist Labour Party, the Christian Party ‘Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship’; as well as two of the newcomers: No2EU:Yes to Democracy and the Jury Team. 2.11 The distribution of spending was mainly accounted for by the Labour Party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Collectively they accounted for 80% of the total party spend across Great Britain. The majority of party spend was, as expected, in England with the exception of those parties focusing on specific countries, e.g. Plaid Cymru, Scottish National Party (SNP). 2.12 Overall the distribution of campaign spending in Great Britain closely matched the distribution of seats. The majority of expenditure took place within England (85%); this region of Great Britain contained 85% of the seats available. Scotland accounted for 8% and Wales 7% of total Great Britain spend; respectively they contained 9% and 6% of the seats available. 2.13 The percentage of total expenditure by each party broadly bore some relationship to the percentage of total seats gained, with one exception. This exception, the newly established Jury Team, spent almost 4% of total spend, but did not return a candidate. 8 European Parliamentary election expenditure by individual candidates Chapter 4. 9 Northern Ireland reviewed separately on p14. 4 Table 2: Comparison of total expenditure and seats won in Great Britain for parties that spent more than £250k and/or those who returned MEPs Party name Total (£) Seats % of % of total total seats spend Conservative and Unionist 2,482,536 25 36.23 27.50 Party Labour Party 2,302,244 13 18.84 25.50 United Kingdom Independence 13 18.84 14.08 Party 1,270,855 Liberal Democrats 1,180,884 11 15.94 13.08 Green Party 369,324 2 2.90 4.09 Jury Team 344,522 0 0.00 3.82 British National Party 282,843 2 2.90 3.13 Scottish National Party 126,170 2 2.90 1.40 Plaid Cymru – Party of Wales 95,162 1 1.45 1.05 Total 8,454,540 69 100 94 2.14 The Labour Party, BNP, SNP and Plaid Cymru all increased their total spend from 2004. The Labour Party increased spend by nearly £600,000, while the Conservative Party decreased its total spend by almost £650,000 but it remained the party with the highest total spend (£2,482,536). The Labour Party followed with a total spend in Great Britain of £2,302,244. 2.15 UKIP spent almost half of what it spent in 2004, significantly reducing spend across Great Britain, while returning 13 MEPs. This gave them the best spend-to-seat ratio for those parties contesting seats across all 11 Great Britain regions (£97,758 per seat).
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]
  • 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]
  • 88 Regionalism and Regionalisation Inn the United Kingdom
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Regionalism after regionalisation : Spain, France and the United Kingdom Schrijver, F.J. Publication date 2006 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Schrijver, F. J. (2006). Regionalism after regionalisation : Spain, France and the United Kingdom. Vossiuspers. http://nl.aup.nl/books/9789056294281-regionalism-after- regionalisation.html General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:26 Sep 2021 88 Regionalism and regionalisation inn the United Kingdom Thee different constituent parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales, Englandd and Northern Ireland, each with their own characteristics, are well- known,, if only through their separate participation at football or rugby tour- naments.. Still, until very recendy none of those regions had a regional gov- ernmentt or regional elections, and the United Kingdom was among the most centralisedd states in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson Plan with Activities: Political
    LESSON PLAN POLITICAL PARTIES Recommended for Grade 10 Duration: Approximately 60 minutes BACKGROUND INFORMATION Parliamentary Roles: www.ola.org/en/visit-learn/about-ontarios-parliament/ parliamentary-roles LEARNING GOALS This lesson plan is designed to engage students in the political process through participatory activities and a discussion about the various political parties. Students will learn the differences between the major parties of Ontario and how they connect with voters, and gain an understanding of the important elements of partisan politics. INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION (10 minutes) Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. Ask students which country our system of government is based on. Canada’s parliamentary system stems from the British, or “Westminster,” tradition. Since Canada is a federal state, responsibility for lawmaking is shared among one federal, ten provincial and three territorial governments. Canada shares the same parliamentary system and similar roles as other parliaments in the Commonwealth – countries with historic links to Britain. In our parliament, the Chamber is where our laws are debated and created. There are some important figures who help with this process. Some are partisan and some are non-partisan. What does it mean to be partisan/non-partisan? Who would be voicing their opinions in the Chamber? A helpful analogy is to imagine the Chamber as a game of hockey, where the political parties are the teams playing and the non-partisan roles as the people who make sure the game can happen (ex. referees, announcers, score keepers, etc.) LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO POLITICAL PARTIES 01 EXPLANATION (5 minutes) Political Parties: • A political party is a group of people who share the same political beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and European Emerging Values: the Right to Decide
    DEMOCRACY AND EUROPEAN EMERGING VALUES: THE RIGHT TO DECIDE COORDINATED BY GERARD BONA LANGUAGE REVIEW BY EMYR GRUFFYDD CENTRE MAURITS COPPIETERS 2015 Contents Foreword 6 Introduction 8 LAKE OR RIVER 14 THE POLITICAL CARTOONING OF CORNISH SELF-DETERMINATION 22 SELF-DETERMINATION AND WALES 44 TOWARDS SOVEREIGN FAROE ISLANDS 54 ABOUT TRANSYLVANIA 62 THE UDBYOUTH : HOW TO BE YOUNG, BRETON AND LEFT-WING WITHOUT AUTONOMY? 72 THE AUTONOMY GENERATION 80 SELF-DETERMINATION AND THE SILESIAN ISSUE 84 THE VALENCIAN COUNTRY AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION 96 LIBERTY FOR BAVARIA 106 SOVEREIGNTY TO BUILD A GALIZA WITH THE PROMISE OF WORK AND A FUTURE FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE 112 “UNTIL ECONOMIC POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE, THEN THEIR CULTURE, GAELIC OR ENGLISH, WILL BE DESTROYED” 124 FLANDERS: ON THE ROAD TO BELGIAN STATE REFORM NUMBER 7 132 THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE CATALAN COUNTRIES: 146 THE RIGHT TO DECIDE OF THREE COUNTRIES AND THEIR NATION This publication is financed with the support of the European Parliament (EP). THE MORAVIAN RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION 154 The EP is not responsible for any use made of the content of this publication. The editor of the publication is the sole person liable. THE ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE SELF-DETERMINATION PROCESS OF ARTSAKH 164 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. THE YOUTH, PIONEERS IN THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF SOUTH TYROL? 178 This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information CENTRE MAURITS COPPIETERS 188 contained therein.
    [Show full text]
  • 30/Spring 2001
    Peelites Tony Little examines the part played by the renegade Conservatives – the Peelites – in the creation of the Liberal Party. ‘‘HisHis FriendsFriends SatSat onon thethe BenchesBenches Opposite’Opposite’ In the Journal’s special issue on defectors (Journal of Although Lord Palmerston had been a part of the Liberal Democrat History , winter –), one Aberdeen coalition, his semi-detached position and group significant to the development of the modern pugnacious character made him the inevitable war Liberal Party was omitted – the Peelites. Here, by leader and he was the prime beneficiary of the pe- way of a review of Professor Angus Hawkins’ book, tering out of the war shortly after he had acceded to Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain, – the premiership. However, Palmerston had only (Macmillan, ), I aim to show the part played been able to form his government by treading on by these renegade Conservatives in the creation of the toes of oversensitive Peelites such as Gladstone, the modern Liberal Party. and without resolving a long-running quarrel with The formation of the Liberal Party is often dated Lord John Russell. to the meeting in Willis’s Rooms on June . It is at this point that Hawkins takes up the story. This meeting brought together Whigs, Liberals, The problem he poses is that, while, in Kitson’s Radicals and Peelites to defeat Lord Derby. It ush- words, it is not ‘very easy to say what specific opin- ered in a Liberal government under Lord ions were uniquely organised in the middle of the Palmerston which served until Palmerston’s death in century by the Conservative Party’, the forces that and paved the way for Gladstone’s great re- came together to oppose Derby suffered from a su- forming government of –.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Liberals in Coalition
    For the study of Liberal, SDP and Issue 72 / Autumn 2011 / £10.00 Liberal Democrat history Journal of LiberalHI ST O R Y Liberals in coalition Vernon Bogdanor Riding the tiger The Liberal experience of coalition government Ian Cawood A ‘distinction without a difference’? Liberal Unionists and Conservatives Kenneth O. Morgan Liberals in coalition, 1916–1922 David Dutton Liberalism and the National Government, 1931–1940 Matt Cole ‘Be careful what you wish for’ Lessons of the Lib–Lab Pact Liberal Democrat History Group 2 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 new book from tHe History Group for details, see back page Journal of Liberal History issue 72: Autumn 2011 The Journal of Liberal History is published quarterly by the Liberal Democrat History Group. ISSN 1479-9642 Riding the tiger: the Liberal experience of 4 Editor: Duncan Brack coalition government Deputy Editor: Tom Kiehl Assistant Editor: Siobhan Vitelli Vernon Bogdanor introduces this special issue of the Journal Biographies Editor: Robert Ingham Reviews Editor: Dr Eugenio Biagini Coalition before 1886 10 Contributing Editors: Graham Lippiatt, Tony Little, York Membery Whigs, Peelites and Liberals: Angus Hawkins examines coalitions before 1886 Patrons A ‘distinction without a difference’? 14 Dr Eugenio Biagini; Professor Michael Freeden; Ian Cawood analyses how the Liberal Unionists maintained a distinctive Professor John Vincent identity from their Conservative allies, until coalition in 1895 Editorial Board The coalition of 1915–1916 26 Dr Malcolm Baines; Dr Roy Douglas; Dr Barry Doyle; Prelude to disaster: Ian Packer examines the Asquith coalition of 1915–16, Dr David Dutton; Prof. David Gowland; Prof. Richard which brought to an end the last solely Liberal government Grayson; Dr Michael Hart; Peter Hellyer; Dr J.
    [Show full text]
  • Referendum Campaign Broadcasts
    Ymgynghoriad ar y meini prawf dyrannu arfaethedig ar gyfer Darllediadau Etholiadol y Pleidiau 2015 Canlyniad yr Ymgynghoriad Chwefror 2015 Sicrhau bod pawb sy'n talu ffi'r drwydded yn cael y gorau o'r BBC bbc.co.uk/bbctrust Canlyniadau'r ymgynghoriad Cefndir Mae’n ofynnol i’r BBC, o dan delerau Siarter a Chytundeb 2006, sicrhau bod materion gwleidyddol dadleuol a materion sy’n ymwneud â pholisi cyhoeddus yn cael sylw diduedd. Cynhelir yr etholiadau canlynol ar 7 Mai 2015: - yr Etholiad Cyffredinol - etholiadau llywodraeth leol Lloegr (gan gynnwys etholiadau maer) Cyn yr etholiadau, bydd y BBC yn cyhoeddi'r meini prawf y bydd yn eu defnyddio i ddyrannu Darllediadau Etholiadol y Pleidiau (DEPau) yng nghyswllt yr etholiadau hyn. Y meini prawf Caiff y meini prawf eu datblygu gan Weithrediaeth y BBC ac fe'u cyflwynir i'r Ymddiriedolaeth i gael eu cymeradwyo. Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC yw corff llywodraethol y BBC. Mae'n gorff ar wahân i Weithrediaeth y BBC, ac yn annibynnol arno. Gweithrediaeth y BBC sy'n gyfrifol am reoli'r BBC o ddydd i ddydd. Yr Ymddiriedolaeth hefyd yw'r corff apelio terfynol ym mhroses cwynion y BBC. Mae'r Ymddiriedolaeth wedi dirprwyo awdurdod i'r Pwyllgor Safonau Golygyddol ("y Pwyllgor") ar gyfer cymeradwyo meini prawf dyrannu DEP y Pwyllgor1. Roedd y meini prawf drafft a luniwyd gan y BBC ar gyfer yr etholiadau hyn fel a ganlyn: Darllediadau Etholiadol y Pleidiau - meini prawf dyrannu Etholiad Cyffredinol 2015 ac Etholiadau Lleol (Lloegr) Yr Etholiad Cyffredinol Gwasanaethau’r BBC sy’n cynnwys Darllediadau Etholiadol y Pleidiau: Bydd DEPau yn cael eu darlledu yn y wlad berthnasol ar: BBC One a BBC Two, BBC Radio Scotland, BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal (sy'n darlledu yn yr iaith Aeleg), BBC Radio Wales, BBC Radio Cymru (sy’n darlledu yn yr iaith Gymraeg) a BBC Radio Ulster.
    [Show full text]
  • Thecoalition
    The Coalition Voters, Parties and Institutions Welcome to this interactive pdf version of The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Please note that in order to view this pdf as intended and to take full advantage of the interactive functions, we strongly recommend you open this document in Adobe Acrobat. Adobe Acrobat Reader is free to download and you can do so from the Adobe website (click to open webpage). Navigation • Each page includes a navigation bar with buttons to view the previous and next pages, along with a button to return to the contents page at any time • You can click on any of the titles on the contents page to take you directly to each article Figures • To examine any of the figures in more detail, you can click on the + button beside each figure to open a magnified view. You can also click on the diagram itself. To return to the full page view, click on the - button Weblinks and email addresses • All web links and email addresses are live links - you can click on them to open a website or new email <>contents The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Edited by: Hussein Kassim Charles Clarke Catherine Haddon <>contents Published 2012 Commissioned by School of Political, Social and International Studies University of East Anglia Norwich Design by Woolf Designs (www.woolfdesigns.co.uk) <>contents Introduction 03 The Coalition: Voters, Parties and Institutions Introduction The formation of the Conservative-Liberal In his opening paper, Bob Worcester discusses Democratic administration in May 2010 was a public opinion and support for the parties in major political event.
    [Show full text]