DOCSLIB.ORG

Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers Of House of Commons Procedure Committee Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker Fourth Report of Session 2002–03 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 November 2003 HC 333 Published on 27 November 2003 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £18.50 The Procedure Committee The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations. Current membership Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman) Mr Peter Atkinson MP (Conservative, Hexham) Mr John Burnett MP (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon) David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Huw Irranca-Davies MP (Labour, Ogmore) Eric Joyce MP (Labour, Falkirk West) Mr Iain Luke MP (Labour, Dundee East) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford) Powers The powers of the committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ committees/procedure_committee.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Patrick and Jenny McCullough (Clerks) and Susan Morrison (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Debates 5 Debates: the existing arrangements 6 Criticisms and proposals for change 7 Front-bench speeches 7 Shorter back-bench speeches 8 Priority to speak 9 Lists of speakers 9 The “alternate sides” convention 11 Undelivered speeches 12 Parliamentary conventions 12 Reading speeches 13 Initiative in choosing subjects for debate 13 Tuesday and Wednesday evenings 14 “Injury time” on Opposition Days 15 A business committee 15 3 Private Members’ Bills 16 The current arrangements 16 Drafting assistance 18 Government approach to private Members’ bills 18 Carry-over of bills to next session 18 Other times of the week 19 Proposals for procedural change 19 4 Powers of the Speaker 19 Emergency recall of the House 19 Business during a recall 21 Conclusions and recommendations 22 Appendix: Conventions and Courtesies of the House 25 Formal minutes 28 Witnesses 29 List of written evidence 30 Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker 3 Summary With the current rules for debates, including the possibility of a limit on the length of speeches of eight minutes or more, back-benchers cannot be expected to be called, on average, more than four times a year for ordinary full or half-day debates (including second readings and Opposition days, but not committee or report stages and Lords Amendments). To enable more back-benchers to be called, we recommend that front- benchers should aim for no more than twenty minutes of speech material (less for a half- day debate), and recommend the experimental introduction of a period of an hour (half an hour in a half-day debate) which would be shared between those Members who had attended (substantially) the whole debate and wished to speak, subject to a lower limit of three minutes per Member (for details see paragraph 13). This is a development of the current informal (and therefore unenforceable) system of dividing up the time remaining before the wind-up speeches between the remaining Members. The Speaker has re-issued his letter to all Members on “Conventions and Courtesies of the House” (see page 25), which includes guidance on the factors the Speaker takes into account when choosing whom to call. We welcome this, and suggest that Members should include concise details of relevant experience, etc., when applying to speak, but that the Speaker should continue to retain absolute discretion, including departing from the convention of calling Members from alternate sides of the House where a shortage of Members attending on one side or the other makes this desirable. We recommend that, for selected debates, a list of those who have applied to speak should be posted in the No division lobby (for details see paragraph 23). We are not in favour of printing undelivered speeches in the Official Report; we support the existing conventions on the method of referring in debate to other Members and to speaking from notes rather than reading out a full text. Since 1995 all private Members’ debates have taken place on motions for the adjournment of the House, and the same practice has prevailed in Westminster Hall. We recommend that some Westminster Hall debates should be chosen by reference to Early Day Motions which have attracted a certain number of signatures, with support from Members from a certain number of parties, but that the actual debate should still be on an adjournment motion. It would be possible to use Tuesday or Wednesday evenings for more debates, but this would be dependent on the current experimental earlier sittings being made permanent and sufficient notice being given for appropriate staffing arrangements to be made. We recommend that the Government should respond favourably to requests for extra time on Opposition days when a lengthy statement is expected (as happened on 9 September), and we propose to return to the subject of a business committee in future. On private Members’ bills, we point out that changing the rules would not necessarily result in a higher success rate—it might simply result in opposition manifesting itself at different stages—but recommend that the Government should be ready to provide drafting help as soon as private Members’ bills receive a second reading; also, the drafting allowance of £200 for each of the top ten Members in the ballot (introduced in 1971) should be 4 Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker updated and become index-linked. Members who wish the Government to support their bills should bear in mind the need to get them printed in enough time before second reading for the Government to take a view on them. We do not recommend carrying-over private Members’ bills from one session to the next. The Speaker should be able to recall the House on his own authority (rather than, as at present, only on request from the Government); we would expect him to take into account the number and source of representations requesting a recall, but do not recommend specifying details in a standing order. The Government should remain responsible for deciding the business to be taken during a recall, but any motion specifying the number of days on which the House should sit after the recall has taken place should be debatable unless it is tabled with the approval of the Speaker. A list of our conclusions and recommendations appears on p 22. Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker 5 1 Introduction 1. Last autumn we decided to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into several of the core areas of the House’s work which are of concern to many Members. We have covered: — procedures for debates, including the pressure on time, the way in which Members are called to speak, some of the conventions of debate; the role of the Opposition and private Members in initiating debates; — private Members’ bills; — the powers of the Speaker, concentrating on the Speaker’s role in recalling the House in an emergency. 2. Members were invited to contribute by an announcement in the All-Party Notices and a letter from our Chairman to all Members first elected in 1997 and later. Many Members wrote to us, and their letters appear among the written evidence; and fifteen gave us oral evidence, including members of the all-party Parliament First Group and the Leader and (then) Shadow Leader of the House (Mr Peter Hain and Mr Eric Forth). We also heard from the Hansard Society, the Clerk of the House and his colleagues and witnesses from the House of Lords. In addition, we had the benefit of private discussions with the Speaker and with Sir Alan Haselhurst, Chairman of Ways and Means.1 To everyone who helped with this inquiry, we express our thanks. 3. Several witnesses raised matters which were of considerable interest but fell outside the areas on which we have eventually decided to concentrate for this Report. These included the House’s scrutiny of the Government’s use of powers under the Royal Prerogative.2 2 Debates 4. Parliaments are places dedicated to talking. They take decisions too, and it is sometimes held that the main purpose of debate is to attempt to persuade the other side in the use of their votes. Perhaps, in a party system with an overall majority, this attempt is not often successful, in which case the debate may still serve to challenge, in a public way, the policies and actions of the Government and to put forward alternative suggestions which, in turn, are subject to challenge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Father of the House Sarah Priddy
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06399, 17 December 2019 By Richard Kelly Father of the House Sarah Priddy Inside: 1. Seniority of Members 2. History www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06399, 17 December 2019 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Seniority of Members 4 1.1 Determining seniority 4 Examples 4 1.2 Duties of the Father of the House 5 1.3 Baby of the House 5 2. History 6 2.1 Origin of the term 6 2.2 Early usage 6 2.3 Fathers of the House 7 2.4 Previous qualifications 7 2.5 Possible elections for Father of the House 8 Appendix: Fathers of the House, since 1901 9 3 Father of the House Summary The Father of the House is a title that is by tradition bestowed on the senior Member of the House, which is nowadays held to be the Member who has the longest unbroken service in the Commons. The Father of the House in the current (2019) Parliament is Sir Peter Bottomley, who was first elected to the House in a by-election in 1975. Under Standing Order No 1, as long as the Father of the House is not a Minister, he takes the Chair when the House elects a Speaker. He has no other formal duties. There is evidence of the title having been used in the 18th century. However, the origin of the term is not clear and it is likely that different qualifications were used in the past. The Father of the House is not necessarily the oldest Member.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Stephen Harper
    HARPER Edited by Teresa Healy www.policyalternatives.ca Photo: Hanson/THE Tom CANADIAN PRESS Understanding Stephen Harper The long view Steve Patten CANAdIANs Need to understand the political and ideological tem- perament of politicians like Stephen Harper — men and women who aspire to political leadership. While we can gain important insights by reviewing the Harper gov- ernment’s policies and record since the 2006 election, it is also essential that we step back and take a longer view, considering Stephen Harper’s two decades of political involvement prior to winning the country’s highest political office. What does Harper’s long record of engagement in conservative politics tell us about his political character? This chapter is organized around a series of questions about Stephen Harper’s political and ideological character. Is he really, as his support- ers claim, “the smartest guy in the room”? To what extent is he a con- servative ideologue versus being a political pragmatist? What type of conservatism does he embrace? What does the company he keeps tell us about his political character? I will argue that Stephen Harper is an economic conservative whose early political motivations were deeply ideological. While his keen sense of strategic pragmatism has allowed him to make peace with both conservative populism and the tradition- alism of social conservatism, he continues to marginalize red toryism within the Canadian conservative family. He surrounds himself with Governance 25 like-minded conservatives and retains a long-held desire to transform Canada in his conservative image. The smartest guy in the room, or the most strategic? When Stephen Harper first came to the attention of political observers, it was as one of the leading “thinkers” behind the fledgling Reform Party of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Watching the Watchmen
    REPORT Watching the Watchmen The Growing Case for Recall Elections and Increased Accountability for MPs Sam Goodman About the Author Sam Goodman is the author of the Imperial Premiership: The Role of the Modern Prime Minister in Foreign Policy Making, 1964-2015 (Manchester University Press: 2015). He is currently working as a political adviser to Peter Dowd MP the current Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and has previously worked for a variety of Labour Members of Parliament including: Julie Cooper MP, Sir Mark Hendrick MP, Michael Dugher MP, and Rt. Hon Jack Straw MP. Watching the Watchmen: The Growing Case for Recall Elections and Increased Accountability for MPs Members of the House of Commons have long flirted parliamentary conventions and much procedure with the idea of British exceptionalism—citing the is arcane, which makes it difficult even for the UK’s role as the ‘mother of all parliaments’, its most ardent politically engaged citizen to follow unwritten constitution, its unitary voting system, proceedings and debates in the House of Commons. and the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament This separation between the governors and over the people—as a bulwark against the instability governed is exacerbated further by the limited customarily found in other western democracies. avenues available to the public to hold those elected In modern times, this argument held water as to account, which is exemplified by recent political it delivered stable parliamentary majorities, scandals, including allegations of bullying and peaceful transfers of power between governments, sexual harassment in the House of Commons. At the and kept in check the ideological fringes of both time of writing this report, no MP has been forced major political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • 97 Winter 2017–18 3 Liberal History News Winter 2017–18
    For the study of Liberal, SDP and Issue 97 / Winter 2017–18 / £7.50 Liberal Democrat history Journal of LiberalHI ST O R Y The Forbidden Ground Tony Little Gladstone and the Contagious Diseases Acts J. Graham Jones Lord Geraint of Ponterwyd Biography of Geraint Howells Susanne Stoddart Domesticity and the New Liberalism in the Edwardian press Douglas Oliver Liberals in local government 1967–2017 Meeting report Alistair J. Reid; Tudor Jones Liberalism Reviews of books by Michael Freeden amd Edward Fawcett Liberal Democrat History Group “David Laws has written what deserves to become the definitive account of the 2010–15 coalition government. It is also a cracking good read: fast-paced, insightful and a must for all those interested in British politics.” PADDY ASHDOWN COALITION DIARIES 2012–2015 BY DAVID LAWS Frank, acerbic, sometimes shocking and often funny, Coalition Diaries chronicles the historic Liberal Democrat–Conservative coalition government through the eyes of someone at the heart of the action. It offers extraordinary pen portraits of all the personalities involved, and candid insider insight into one of the most fascinating periods of recent British political history. 560pp hardback, £25 To buy Coalition Diaries from our website at the special price of £20, please enter promo code “JLH2” www.bitebackpublishing.com Journal of Liberal History advert.indd 1 16/11/2017 12:31 Journal of Liberal History Issue 97: Winter 2017–18 The Journal of Liberal History is published quarterly by the Liberal Democrat History Group. ISSN 1479-9642 Liberal history news 4 Editor: Duncan Brack Obituary of Bill Pitt; events at Gladstone’s Library Deputy Editors: Mia Hadfield-Spoor, Tom Kiehl Assistant Editor: Siobhan Vitelli Archive Sources Editor: Dr J.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scorecard 2009 – 2010
    PARLIAMENTARY SCORECARD 2009 – 2010 ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF UGANDA’S LEGISLATORS Parliamentary Scorecard 2009 – 2010: Assessing the Performance of Uganda’s Legislators A publication of the Africa Leadership Institute with technical support from Projset Uganda, Stanford University and Columbia University. Funding provided by the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Uganda and Deepening Democracy Program. All rights reserved. Published January 2011. Design and Printing by Some Graphics Ltd. Tel: +256 752 648576; +256 776 648576 Africa Leadership Institute For Excellence in Governance, Security and Development P.O. Box 232777 Kampala, Uganda Tel: +256 414 578739 Plot 7a Naguru Summit View Road Email: [email protected] 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Acknowledgements 3 II. Abbreviations 6 III. Forward 7 IV. Executive Summary 9 V. Report on the Parliamentary Performance Scorecard 13 1. Purpose 13 2. The Road to the 2009 – 2010 Scorecard 14 2.1 Features of the 2009 – 2010 Scorecard 15 3. Disseminating the Scorecard to Voters through Constituency Workshops 17 4. Data Sources 22 5. Measures 22 A. MP Profile 23 B. Overall Grades for Performance 25 C. Disaggregated Performance Scores 29 Plenary Performance 29 Committee Performance 34 Constituency Performance 37 Non-Graded Measures 37 D. Positional Scores 40 Political Position 40 Areas of Focus 42 MP’s Report 43 6. Performance of Parliament 43 A. Performance of Sub-Sections of Parliament 43 B. How Does MP Performance in 2009 – 2010 Compare to Performance in the Previous Three Years of the 8th Parliament? 51 Plenary Performance 51 Committee Performance 53 Scores Through the Years 54 C. Parliament’s Productivity 55 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Stewart2019.Pdf
    Political Change and Scottish Nationalism in Dundee 1973-2012 Thomas A W Stewart PhD Thesis University of Edinburgh 2019 Abstract Prior to the 2014 independence referendum, the Scottish National Party’s strongest bastions of support were in rural areas. The sole exception was Dundee, where it has consistently enjoyed levels of support well ahead of the national average, first replacing the Conservatives as the city’s second party in the 1970s before overcoming Labour to become its leading force in the 2000s. Through this period it achieved Westminster representation between 1974 and 1987, and again since 2005, and had won both of its Scottish Parliamentary seats by 2007. This performance has been completely unmatched in any of the country’s other cities. Using a mixture of archival research, oral history interviews, the local press and memoires, this thesis seeks to explain the party’s record of success in Dundee. It will assess the extent to which the character of the city itself, its economy, demography, geography, history, and local media landscape, made Dundee especially prone to Nationalist politics. It will then address the more fundamental importance of the interaction of local political forces that were independent of the city’s nature through an examination of the ability of party machines, key individuals and political strategies to shape the city’s electoral landscape. The local SNP and its main rival throughout the period, the Labour Party, will be analysed in particular detail. The thesis will also take time to delve into the histories of the Conservatives, Liberals and Radical Left within the city and their influence on the fortunes of the SNP.
    [Show full text]
  • Safer Stronger Communties Supplementary Agenda PDF 921 KB
    Public Document Pack Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee Supplementary Agenda Monday, 4 February 2019 6.30 pm, Committee Room 1 Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall London SE6 4RU For more information contact: Katie Wood - 0208 3149446 This meeting is an open meeting and all items on the agenda may be audio recorded and/or filmed. Part 1 Item Pages 4. The Impact of the Prevent strategy and "Stop and 3 - 42 Search" policy on community relations. - Evidence Session Members of the public are welcome to attend committee meetings. However, occasionally, committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of agendas, minutes and reports are available on request in Braille, in large print, on audio tape, on computer disk or in other languages. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4 Councillors Morrison and Anwar along with the Scrutiny Manager attended the Lewisham Youth Independent Advisory Group at Lewisham Police Station on Thursday 24th January 2019. The group started a year ago and was designed to be a safe space for young people and a chance to chat to local Police and share concerns and ideas. The Police were working with schools. This was happening more now compared to the past but there was always room for improvement. There were 11 young women at the meeting and all felt that they didn’t mind the idea of stop and search and it could make people feel safer but it was important it was done “fairly and politely”. The young people reported that it could be a humiliating interaction and there should be more emphasis on respect and politeness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislature
    6 The Legislature Key Terms Ad hoc Committees (p. 241) Also known as a working legislative committee, whose mandate is time-limited. Adjournment (p. 235) The temporary suspension of a legislative sitting until it reconvenes. Auditor General (p. 228) An independent officer responsible for auditing and reporting to the legislature regarding a government’s spending and operations. Backbenchers (p. 225) Rank-and-file legislators without cabinet responsibilities or other special legislative titles or duties. Bicameral legislature (p. 208) A legislative body consisting of two chambers (or “houses”). Bill (p. 241) A piece of draft legislation tabled in the legislature. Budget (p. 236) A document containing the government’s projected revenue, expenditures, and economic forecasts. Budget Estimates (p. 237) The more detailed, line-by-line statements of how each department will treat revenues and expenditures. By-election (p. 208) A district-level election held between general elections. Coalition government (p. 219) A hung parliament in which the cabinet consists of members from more than one political party. Committee of the Whole (p. 241) Another name for the body of all legislators. Confidence convention (p. 208)The practice under which a government must relinquish power when it loses a critical legislative vote. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Contempt (p. 224) A formal denunciation of a member’s or government’s unparliamentary behaviour by the speaker. Consensus Government (p. 247) A system of governance that operates without political parties. Crossing the floor (p. 216) A situation in which a member of the legislature leaves one political party to join another party.
    [Show full text]
  • U DPK Sir Patrick Cormack MP 1990S - 2000S
    Hull History Centre: Sir Patrick Cormack U DPK Sir Patrick Cormack MP 1990s - 2000s Biographical Background: Sir Patrick Cormack, Baron Cormack was born in Grimsby on 18 May 1939 and attended school in Grimsby before graduating with a BA degree in English and History at the University of Hull in 1961. He was a teacher at his former school St James's Choir School and undertook numerous teaching-related posts before becoming the Head of History at the Brewood Grammar School in 1969. He stood, unsuccessfully, as a Conservative candidate in the Labour seat of Bolsover in 1964 and Grimbsy in 1966. In 1970 he stood for Cannock and won narrowly against the incumbent MP and then spent the next forty years as an MP. He was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Health (1970-1973) and in 1974 won the new seat of South West Staffordshire which became Staffordshire South in 1983. Cormack was knighted in 1995 for services to Parliament and in 1997 was appointed to become Deputy Leader of the Opposition under William Hague. He resigned from this in 2000 to run for post of Speaker but lost to Michael Martin. During the 2005-10 Parliament, Cormack was the chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee. On 1st December 2009 he announced his intention to stand down at the 2010 General Election. He was created a life peer on 18 December 2010 as Baron Cormack and sits on the Conservative benches of the House of Lords. He was appointed a Deputy Lieutenant of Staffordshire in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • None of the Above: the UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003
    d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003 IAIN MCLEAN, ARTHUR SPIRLING AND MEG RUSSELL The preamble to the UK's Parliament Act cent) of the members of a future house be 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5 c.13) states that that Act elected, but rejected the Royal Com- is a temporary measure only: mission's proposal that all appointed members be chosen by an independent Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second appointments commission. Chamber constituted on a popular instead of This White Paper had a poor reception. hereditary basis, but substitution cannot be The Lord Chancellor's Department, immediately brought into operation . which issued it, later analysed the re- sponses to it. Of the 82 per cent of Attempts to bring the substitution into respondents who discussed election, operation in 1949 and 1968 failed. The 89 per cent `called for a house that was Labour Party's 1997 manifesto states: 50per cent or more elected'. Of the 17 per The House of Lords must be reformed. As an cent of respondents who discussed the initial, self-contained reform, not dependent future of the Church of England bishops, on further reform in the future, the right of 85 per cent opposed their continued pre- hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House sence in the house. Of the 12 per cent of of Lords will be ended by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for Reflection
    All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group TIME FOR REFLECTION A REPORT OF THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY HUMANIST GROUP ON RELIGION OR BELIEF IN THE UK PARLIAMENT The All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group acts to bring together non-religious MPs and peers to discuss matters of shared interests. More details of the group can be found at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/190508/humanist.htm. This report was written by Cordelia Tucker O’Sullivan with assistance from Richy Thompson and David Pollock, both of Humanists UK. Layout and design by Laura Reid. This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the Group. © All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, 2019-20. TIME FOR REFLECTION CONTENTS FOREWORD 4 INTRODUCTION 6 Recommendations 7 THE CHAPLAIN TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 8 BISHOPS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 10 Cost of the Lords Spiritual 12 Retired Lords Spiritual 12 Other religious leaders in the Lords 12 Influence of the bishops on the outcome of votes 13 Arguments made for retaining the Lords Spiritual 14 Arguments against retaining the Lords Spiritual 15 House of Lords reform proposals 15 PRAYERS IN PARLIAMENT 18 PARLIAMENT’S ROLE IN GOVERNING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 20 Parliamentary oversight of the Church Commissioners 21 ANNEX 1: FORMER LORDS SPIRITUAL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 22 ANNEX 2: THE INFLUENCE OF LORDS SPIRITUAL ON THE OUTCOME OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 24 Votes decided by the Lords Spiritual 24 Votes decided by current and former bishops 28 3 All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group FOREWORD The UK is more diverse than ever before.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (9MB)
    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]