Election Briefing 2019
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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. -
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. -
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 -
Ethol Aelodau Senedd Cymru Dros Ranbarth Canolbarth a Gorllewin
DATGAN CANLYNIAD Y DECLARATION OF RESULT OF BLEIDLAIS POLL Ethol Aelodau Senedd Cymru Election of Members of Senedd dros Ranbarth Canolbarth a Cymru for the Mid and West Gorllewin Cymru Wales Region YR WYF I, Eifion Evans, sef y Swyddog Canlyniadau Rhanbarthol I, Eifion Evans, being the Regional Returning Officer at the Election ar gyfer Rhanbarth Canolbarth a Gorllewin Cymru yn Etholiad of Senedd Cymru for the Mid and West Wales Region, held on 6 Senedd Cymru, a gynhaliwyd ar 6 Mai 2021, felly’n datgan bod May 2021, hereby declare the total number of votes cast for the nifer y pleidleisiau a fwriwyd ar gyfer y Rhanbarth fel y ganlyn: Region are as follows: Enw’r Blaid Cyfanswm nifer y Pleidleisiau a Fwriwyd i’r Blaid: Name of Party Number of Votes Recorded for the Party: ABOLISH THE WELSH ASSEMBLY PARTY 8,073 Britain’s Communist Party Plaid Gomiwnyddol Prydain 589 Ceidwadwyr Cymreig / Welsh Conservatives 63,827 Freedom Alliance. No Lockdowns. No Curfews. 1,181 Gwlad – The Welsh Independence Party 1,303 Gwlad – Plaid Annibyniaeth Cymru Plaid Cymru-The Party of Wales 65,450 PROPEL CYMRU 1,428 REFORM UK 2,582 UKIP Scrap The Assembly/Senedd 3,731 WALES GREEN PARTY / PLAID WERDD CYMRU 10,545 WELSH CHRISTIAN PARTY “PROCLAIMING CHRIST’S LORDSHIP” 1,366 WELSH LABOUR/LLAFUR CYMRU 61,733 WELSH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS – PUT RECOVERY FIRST / DEMOCRATIAID 16,181 RHYDDFRYDOL CYMRU – ADFYWIO YW’R FLAENORIAETH Welsh Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 257 Argraffwyd a chyhoeddwyd gan / Printed and published by: Eifion Evans, Swyddog Canlyniadau Rhanbarthol / Regional Returning Officer Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion, Penmorfa, Aberaeron SA46 0PA Yr wyf yn datgan hefyd dyraniad seddi ar gyfer y Rhanbarth fel a I further declare the allocation of seats for the Region are as follows: ganlyn: Enw’r Aelod Enw’r Blaid Wleidyddol Gofrestredig, os yw’n berthnasol Full Name of Member Name of Registered Political Party, if applicable 1. -
Challenger Party List
Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against -
Country Fact Sheet, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets file:///C:/Documents and Settings/brendelt/Desktop/temp rir/Country Fact... Français Home Contact Us Help Search canada.gc.ca Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets Home Country Fact Sheet DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO April 2007 Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. All sources are cited. This document is not, and does not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed or conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. For further information on current developments, please contact the Research Directorate. Table of Contents 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 2. POLITICAL BACKGROUND 3. POLITICAL PARTIES 4. ARMED GROUPS AND OTHER NON-STATE ACTORS 5. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ENDNOTES REFERENCES 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Official name Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Geography The Democratic Republic of the Congo is located in Central Africa. It borders the Central African Republic and Sudan to the north; Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania to the east; Zambia and Angola to the south; and the Republic of the Congo to the northwest. The country has access to the 1 of 26 9/16/2013 4:16 PM Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets file:///C:/Documents and Settings/brendelt/Desktop/temp rir/Country Fact... Atlantic Ocean through the mouth of the Congo River in the west. The total area of the DRC is 2,345,410 km². -
The Bulletin
THE BULLETIN News and Reports from the Social issues Team Issue 34 – March 2017 CONTENTS Should sex and relationships education be made Norman Wells 2 compulsory in all schools? The mental health explosion in schools 9 One small step for marriage… The new marriage statistics Rod Badams 18 The care of refugees: Should the West prioritise Christians? Hendrik Storm 21 Dealing pastorally with the realities of divorce and cohabitation Regan King 23 The Named Persons scheme: Implications of the Sam Webster 27 Supreme Court victory Book review: The Mission of God Tim Dieppe 31 Life issues (Abortion, Gene editing, John Ling 33 Assisted reproductive technologies, Stem-cell technologies, Euthanasia and assisted suicide, USA and elsewhere) Latest news of significant individual cases 43 (The Christian Institute, Christian Legal Centre) The Bulletin is published by the Social Issues Team of Affinity Editor: Matthew Evans, [email protected]) 1 Should sex and relationships education be made compulsory in all schools? Practically everyone is in favour of compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE) – or so we are led to believe. In a recent House of Commons debate, the Green MP Caroline Lucas reeled off a long list of the great and good who backed her private member’s bill to maKe the provision of Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE), including SRE, a statutory requirement. She declared: It is bacKed by 87 per cent of parents, 88 per cent of teachers and 85 per cent of business leaders. YouGov and the PSHE Association found that 90 per cent of parents believe that schools should teach about mental health and emotional wellbeing. -
Race and Elections
Runnymede Perspectives Race and Elections Edited by Omar Khan and Kjartan Sveinsson Runnymede: Disclaimer This publication is part of the Runnymede Perspectives Intelligence for a series, the aim of which is to foment free and exploratory thinking on race, ethnicity and equality. The facts presented Multi-ethnic Britain and views expressed in this publication are, however, those of the individual authors and not necessariliy those of the Runnymede Trust. Runnymede is the UK’s leading independent thinktank on race equality ISBN: 978-1-909546-08-0 and race relations. Through high-quality research and thought leadership, we: Published by Runnymede in April 2015, this document is copyright © Runnymede 2015. Some rights reserved. • Identify barriers to race equality and good race Open access. Some rights reserved. relations; The Runnymede Trust wants to encourage the circulation of • Provide evidence to its work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. support action for social The trust has an open access policy which enables anyone change; to access its content online without charge. Anyone can • Influence policy at all download, save, perform or distribute this work in any levels. format, including translation, without written permission. This is subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Licence Deed: Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales. Its main conditions are: • You are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work; • You must give the original author credit; • You may not use this work for commercial purposes; • You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. You are welcome to ask Runnymede for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the licence. -
Daily Report Thursday, 20 May 2021 CONTENTS
Daily Report Thursday, 20 May 2021 This report shows written answers and statements provided on 20 May 2021 and the information is correct at the time of publication (06:30 P.M., 20 May 2021). For the latest information on written questions and answers, ministerial corrections, and written statements, please visit: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenanswers/ CONTENTS ANSWERS 5 Government Departments: ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 Cost Effectiveness 12 [Subject Heading to be India: Visits Abroad 12 Assigned] 5 Regional Planning and BUSINESS, ENERGY AND Development: Civil Servants 13 INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY 5 Third Sector 13 Amazon: Delivery Services 5 CHURCH COMMISSIONERS 14 Animal Experiments 6 St Paul's Cathedral 14 Hospitality Industry: DEFENCE 15 Recruitment 7 Armoured Fighting Vehicles: Nuclear Power: Finance 7 Procurement 15 Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry 8 Challenger Tanks: Depleted Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Uranium 15 Witnesses 8 Cybercrime 15 CABINET OFFICE 9 HMS Queen Elizabeth: Joint 11 Downing Street: Repairs Strike Fighter Aircraft 16 and Maintenance 9 RAF Valley 16 Animal Products: UK Trade Terrorism: Weapons of Mass with EU 9 Destruction 17 Census: Gender Recognition 9 DIGITAL, CULTURE, MEDIA AND Constitution, Democracy and SPORT 18 Rights Commission 10 Arts Council: Music 18 Coronavirus: Vaccination 10 Culture, Practices and Ethics Drugs: Northern Ireland 11 of the Press Inquiry 18 Elections: Fraud 11 Digital Markets Unit: Staff 19 Electronic Warfare: Public Sector 12 Dormant Assets Scheme: FOREIGN, COMMONWEALTH National Lottery Community -
Blasphemy and the Negotiation of Religious Pluralism in Britain
Laura Tomes1 Прегледни рад Theology and Religious Studies department, Georgetown University, USA UDK 342.727(420) 299.5(420) BLASPHEMY AND THE NEGOTIATION OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN BRITAIN Abstract This paper examines the May 2008 abolition of the British law against blasphemy. The blasphemy law had been the subject of debate since the 1970’s, which began a series of high profile attempts to invoke the law against perceived offenders. No action was taken until after September 11th, when the Labour government sought to institute a law criminalising Incitement to Religious Hatred. It was not until that law came into statute (2006), that the Houses of Commons and Lords seriously debated abolishing the blasphemy law. Against those who argued that changing the legislation amounted to ‘the death of Christian Britain’, I argue that this case offers evidence that the meta-narrative of secularization is neither helpful nor accurate; it fails to account for the reasons why the law was eliminated, or for its relation to ongoing efforts to accommodate religious diversity. The elimination of the blasphemy law and enactment of the Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation should be situated as part of ongoing efforts to negotiate diversity in Britain, and serves as an illustration that a more thoughtful analysis of religion should be a major part of the debate on cultural pluralism. Key words: Blasphemy, Christianity, Church of England, Secularization, Religious Pluralism. Introduction The House of Lords voted to abolish the British common law offence of blasphe- mous libel in March 2008, culminating three decades of critical discussion surround- ing its meaning and utility.2 The fulcrum of these debates was arguably the infamous 1 [email protected] 2 Note, we refer here to a law which was binding only upon Britain, i.e. -
Section 28 Page 1 Section 28
Section 28 Page 1 Section 28 Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was a controversial amendment to the UK's Local Government Act 1986, enacted on 24 May 1988 and repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland, and on 18 November 2003 in the rest of the UK by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003. The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". Some people believed that Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal. Teachers and educational staff in some cases were afraid of discussing gay issues with students for fear of losing state funding. Because it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self- censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act. While going through Parliament, the amendment was constantly relabelled with a variety of clause numbers as other amendments were added to or deleted from the Bill, but by the final version of the Bill, which received Royal Assent, it had become Section 28. Section 28 is sometimes referred to as Clause 28. -
Religious Right
Is there a ‘Religious Right’ Emerging in Britain? Is there a ‘Religious Right’ Emerging in Britian? Andy Walton in Britian? Andy Emerging Right’ ‘Religious a Is there Recent years have seen an increasing number of This report gives a reliable overview of evidence claims that a US-style Religious Right either exists or concerning the purported rise of the Christian is rapidly emerging in Britain. This report examines Right in Britian. Drawing on new research, it profiles Is there a ‘Religious Right’ whether or not the claims are accurate. several new Christian groups. By placing them in context, it shows why rumours that an American- Superficially, it argues, the case looks quite strong: style movement is crossing the Atlantic are greatly there is evidence of greater co-ordination among exaggerated. Christian groups with a strong socially-conservative Emerging in Britain? commitment, in particular relating to human Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of sexuality, marriage, family life, and religious freedom, Religion, Lancaster University about which they are vocal and often willing to resort to legal action. This is a familiar picture within US This is a measured and thoughtful piece of research, politics. contributing to a topic where there is too much heat Andy Walton and too little light in contemporary debate. It assesses However, on closer inspection, research and analysis the presence – or, rather, the current absence – of a suggest that it is highly misleading to describe this coherent ‘Religious Right’ in British politics through with phenomenon as a US-style Religious Right. For a a detailed comparison with the characteristics of the number of reasons – economic, social, ecclesiastical movement in the US.