DOCSLIB.ORG

UK Election Statistics: 1918-2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP7529, 23 April 2017 By UK Election Statistics: Lukas Audickas Oliver Hawkins 1918-2017 Richard Cracknell Inside: 1. Introduction 2. General elections since 1918 3. House of Commons by- elections 4. European Parliament elections 5. Elections to devolved legislatures and London elections 6. Local Elections 7. Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Elections 8. Referendums 9. Appendix A: Voting systems and electoral geographies used in UK elections www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number CBP7529, 23 April 2017 2 Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. General elections since 1918 6 2.1 Summary of results 6 Conservatives 7 Labour 7 Liberals 8 Scottish National Party 8 Plaid Cymru 8 Other parties 8 Speaker 9 2.2 Governments formed 11 2.3 Turnout and electorate 25 2.4 Spoilt Ballots 26 2.5 Postal votes 26 2.6 Characteristics of Members of Parliament 27 Gender 27 Age of MPs 28 Ethnicity 29 Parliamentary experience 30 2.7 Social background of Members of Parliament 30 Education 31 Occupation 31 3. House of Commons by-elections 35 3.1 Great Britain 35 3.2 Northern Ireland 45 4. European Parliament elections 49 (UK) 49 5. Elections to devolved legislatures and London elections 51 5.1 National Assembly for Wales 51 5.2 Scottish Parliament 53 5.3 Northern Ireland Assembly 55 5.4 London Assembly 57 5.5 Mayor of London 59 5.6 Women’s representation in devolved assemblies and the European Parliament 61 6. Local Elections 62 6.1 Council Elections 62 6.2 Elected Mayors (outside London) 66 7. Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Elections 76 8. Referendums 79 8.1 European Union Referendum (June 2016) 79 8.2 Europe (June 1975) 79 8.3 Scotland (1979, 1997 and 2014) 80 8.4 Wales (1979, 1997 and 2011) 82 8.5 Northern Ireland (1973 and 1998) 83 8.6 London (May 1998) 83 8.7 North East England (November 2004) 84 8.8 Alternative Vote (May 2011) 84 3 UK Election Statistics: 1918-2017 9. Appendix A: Voting systems and electoral geographies used in UK elections 85 9.1 General Elections 85 9.2 Local government elections 85 England and Wales 85 Scotland and Northern Ireland 85 9.3 European Parliament Elections 85 9.4 Elections to devolved parliaments and assemblies 86 9.5 Mayoral Elections 86 9.6 Further information 87 Contributing Authors: Lukas Audickas, Social and General Statistics Oliver Hawkins, Social and General Statistics Richard Cracknell, Social and General Statistics Cover page image was compiled by Lukas Audickas using pictures by : - Hamish Irvine / Scottish Parliament Building (Top left corner). Licensed by CC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped - Gary Eldridge / The Senedd (Top right corner). Licensed by CC Attribution- NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped - Stacey MacNaught / Town Hall Albert Square, Manchester (Middle left side), Licensed by CC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped - Robert Young / Stormont (Middle right side), Licensed by CC Attribution- NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped - Paul Hudson / Weekend Walk: London Assembly Building (Bottom left corner) Licensed by CC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped - Steven Gerner / Westminster Palace (Bottom right corner) Licensed by CC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) / image cropped Number CBP7529, 23 April 2017 4 1. Introduction This paper provides summary results for UK elections from 1918 to 2017, focusing on elections to the House of Commons. 1918 marked a major shift in British electoral politics. An extension of the electoral franchise meant women aged over 30 were able to vote in general elections for the first time. It was no longer necessary to hold property in order to be able to vote, thus bringing many more working class people into the electorate. The Liberals’ position as one of the two dominant parties in British politics alongside the Conservatives was threatened by splits in the party leadership. Labour became the main opposition party at the 1918 General Election as a consequence of a Conservative-Liberal coalition, and by 1922 Labour had supplanted the Liberals as the Conservatives’ main challenger. Since 1918, British elections have been dominated by the Conservatives and Labour. In 16 out of 26 general elections since 1918 the Conservative Party won most seats, while Labour won most seats on the other ten occasions. In all general elections between 1918 and 1945 the Conservatives received more votes than any other party; only in 1997 did they get less than 35% of the vote. Labour did not win a House of Commons majority until 1945, although it twice formed minority governments after the 1923 and 1929 elections. Labour became the second largest party at Westminster behind the Conservatives in 1922, when it received slightly more votes than the Liberals but won more than twice as many seats. Between 1945 and 1970 all but a handful of House of Commons seats were held by the Conservatives and Labour, who together took about nine in every ten votes cast in general elections over this period. From 1974 to 2010 an increasing share of the vote went to the Liberal Party and its successor, the Liberal Democrats. In 2015 the Scottish National Party became the third largest in Parliament with 56 MPs. After the last election the number of Liberal Democrat MPs decreased from 57 in 2010 to 8 in 2015. There has also been an increase in support for candidates other than the four largest parties (those with 8 or more MPs). The other parties and independent candidates won nearly 20% of vote in 2015 compared to less than 1% in 1951. The profile of Members elected at general elections has altered since 1918. Only one of the 707 Members elected in 1918 was a woman, compared to 191 out of 650 MPs in 2015. Four Labour MPs elected in 1987 were the first black and minority ethnic (BME) Members to sit in the House in the post-war era; today there are 41 Members from BME backgrounds. Today more MPs have been to university than was the case sixty years ago, while the numbers who attended private schools or went to Oxbridge has decreased. The growth in support for smaller parties at general elections can also be observed in local government elections and elections to the European Parliament. The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties won 97% of the vote in the 1979 European Parliament elections but only 56% in 2014. The introduction of a proportional voting system for European Parliament elections in 1999 was a factor in more MEPs being elected from other parties. The First Past the Post electoral system used in Westminster elections and local elections in England and Wales means that the increase in votes for other parties has not translated to the same extent into an increase in their number of MPs or councillors. 5 UK Election Statistics: 1918-2017 The Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru have generally performed better in devolved elections than in Westminster elections. While the SNP has improved on its performance in the first Scottish Parliament election in 1999, Plaid Cymru has been unable to match its performance in 1999 at subsequent Assembly elections. Parliamentary by-elections are now less common than 50 years ago and in areas that have moved from a two-tier structure to unitary status, local elections are less frequent. However, devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the introduction of elected mayors and police and crime commissioners mean additional events have been added to the electoral calendar. Detailed results from individual elections can be found in relevant House of Commons Library research papers, and underlying data for each chart and figure and additional statistics can be found in the accompanying Excel file. This paper replaces Library Research Paper 12/43 Election Statistics: UK 1918-2015. Number CBP7529, 23 April 2017 6 2. General elections since 1918 2.1 Summary of results There have been 26 UK general elections since 1918. On 16 occasions Detailed analysis of the Conservatives won the most seats while Labour won the most seats General Election 2015 is available in: on ten occasions. House of Commons Library The Conservatives held the most seats following the 1923 General Briefing Paper CBP-7186 Election but resigned government to be replaced by a minority Labour administration. Labour was the largest party in the House of Commons after the 1929 and February 1974 general elections and on both occasions formed a minority government. In 2010, the Conservatives were the largest party and formed coalition government with Liberal Democrats. In 2015, the Conservatives won the most seats and formed a majority government. On three occasions, the party with the most votes did not win the most seats. In 1929 and in February 1974, Labour polled fewer votes than the Conservatives but had more MPs. In 1951 the Conservatives won the most seats but received fewer votes than Labour. Most recently, in 2015 the Conservatives secured an eleven seat majority, this was the smallest majority since the 1974 Labour victory which had a four seat majority, and the first overall Conservative majority since 1992. Share of the vote by party: UK General Elections, 1918-2015 70% 60% 50% 40% CON 30% LAB 20% Other 10% LD PC/SNP 0% 1918 1922 1923 1924 1929 1931 1935 1945 1950 1951 1955 1959 1964 1966 1970 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005 2010 2015 Oct 1974 Feb 1974 Note: Liberal vote share includes votes for Liberal/SDP alliance (1983-87) and Liberal Democrats from 1992.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Decision of the Election Committee on a Due Impartiality Complaint Brought by the Respect Party in Relation to the London Deba

    1 Decision of the Election Committee on a Due Impartiality Complaint Brought by the Respect Party in Relation to the London Deba

    Decision of the Election Committee on a due impartiality complaint brought by the Respect Party in relation to The London Debate ITV London, 5 April 2016 LBC 97.3 , 5 April 2016 1. On Friday 29 April 2016, Ofcom’s Election Committee (“the Committee”)1 met to consider and adjudicate on a complaint made by the Respect Party in relation to its candidate for the London Mayoral election, George Galloway (“the Complaint”). The Complaint was about the programme The London Debate, broadcast in ITV’s London region on ITV, and on ITV HD and ITV+1 at 18:00 on Tuesday 5 April 2016 (“the Programme”). The Programme was broadcast simultaneously by LBC on the local analogue radio station LBC 97.3, as well as nationally on DAB radio and on digital television (as a radio channel). 2. The Committee consisted of the following members: Nick Pollard (Chair, Member of the Ofcom Content Board); Dame Lynne Brindley DBE (Member of the Ofcom Board and Content Board); Janey Walker (Member of the Ofcom Content Board); and Tony Close (Ofcom Director with responsibility for Content Standards, Licensing and Enforcement and Member of the Ofcom Content Board). 3. For the reasons set out in this decision, having considered all of the submissions and evidence before it under the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Code (“the Code”), the Committee decided not to uphold the Respect Party’s complaint. The Committee found that in respect of ITV the broadcast of the Programme complied with the requirements of the Code. In the case of LBC, the Programme did not a contain list of candidates in the 2016 London Mayoral election (in audio form) and LBC therefore breached Rule 6.11.
  • Parliamentary Elections 2010

    Parliamentary Elections 2010

    This document was classified as: OFFICIAL TEES VALLEY COMBINED AUTHORITY MAYORAL ELECTION 6 MAY 2021 INFORMATION PACK FOR CANDIDATES AND AGENTS Contents 1. Submission of Nomination Papers 2. Overview 3. Covid Considerations 4. Contact Details 5. Candidate Addresses 6. Access to Electoral Register and other resources 7. Registration and Absent Voting 8. Agents 9. Spending Limits 10. Canvassing and Political Advertising 11. Verification and Count Overview 12. EC Guidance 13. Publication of Results 14. Declaration of Acceptance of Office 15. Term of Office 16. Briefings Appendix 1 – Contact Details for Council’s within the Tees Valley Appendix 2 – Election Timetable Appendix 3 – Candidate Contact Details Form Appendix 4 – Candidate Checklist Appendix 5 – Nomination Form Appendix 6 – Candidate’s Home Address Form Appendix 7– Consent to nomination Appendix 8 – Certificate of Authorisation (Party candidates only) Appendix 9 – Request for Party Emblem (Party candidates only) Appendix 10 – Notification of election agent Appendix 11 – Notification of sub-agent (optional) Appendix 12 – Candidates Deposits Form Appendix 13 – Notice of withdrawal Appendix 14 – Candidate’s Addresses Appendix 15 – Register Request Form Appendix 16 – Absent Voters Request Form Appendix 17 – Notification of postal voting agents, polling agents and counting agents Appendix 18 – Postal Vote Openings and Times Appendix 19 – Code of Conduct for Campaigners Appendix 20 – Declaration of Secrecy Appendix 21 – Polling Station Lists Appendix 22 – Verification and Count location plans Appendix 23 – Count Procedure and layout Appendix 24 – Thornaby Pavilion car parking Appendix 25 – Feedback Form J Danks Combined Authority Returning Office (CARO) 1 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL 1. Submission of Nomination Papers Candidates/ Agents are encouraged to email scanned nomination forms and supporting papers for informal checking at the earliest opportunity.
  • {DOWNLOAD} Politics in Europe: an Introduction To

    {DOWNLOAD} Politics in Europe: an Introduction To

    POLITICS IN EUROPE: AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,FRANCE AND GERMANY 5TH EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK M Donald Hancock | 9781604266115 | | | | | Politics in Europe: An Introduction to Politics in the United Kingdom,France and Germany 5th edition PDF Book The public take part in Parliament in a way that is not the case at Westminster through Cross-Party Groups on policy topics which the interested public join and attend meetings of alongside Members of the Scottish Parliament MSPs. Regions of Asia. The radical feminists believe that these are rooted in the structures of family or domestic life. This group currently has 51 MPs. Parsons, T. Under this proposal, most MPs would be directly elected from constituencies by the alternative vote , with a number of additional members elected from "top-up lists. Sheriff courts deal with most civil and criminal cases including conducting criminal trials with a jury, known that as Sheriff solemn Court, or with a Sheriff and no jury, known as Sheriff summary Court. Sociologists usually apply the term to such conflicts only if they are initiated and conducted in accordance with socially recognized forms. The small Gallo-Roman population there became submerged among the German immigrants, and Latin ceased to be the language of everyday speech. Nevertheless, many radical feminists claim that a matriarchal society would be more peaceful compared to the patriarchal one. Powers reserved by Westminster are divided into "excepted matters", which it retains indefinitely, and "reserved matters", which may be transferred to the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly at a future date.
  • Hacking Affair Is Not Over – but What Would a Second Leveson Inquiry Achieve?

    Hacking Affair Is Not Over – but What Would a Second Leveson Inquiry Achieve?

    7/10/2019 Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? Academic rigour, journalistic flair Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? July 25, 2014 3.57pm BST Author John Jewell Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University On we go. Ian Nicholson/PA In the latest episode in the long-running saga that is the phone hacking affair, Dan Evans, a former journalist at the News of the World and Sunday Mirror, has received a 10 month suspended sentence after being convicted of two counts of phone hacking, one of making illegal payments to officials, and one of perverting the course of justice. Coming so soon after the conviction of Andy Coulson and the acquittal of Rebekah Brooks and others, one could be forgiven for assuming that the whole phone hacking business is now done and dusted. Not a bit of it. As Julian Petley has written: “Eleven more trials are due to take place involving 20 current or former Sun and News of the World journalists, who are accused variously of making illegal payments to public officials, conspiring to intercept voicemail and accessing data on stolen mobile phones.” We also learned in June that Scotland Yard had officially told Rupert Murdoch of their intention to interview him as part of their inquiry into allegations of crime at his British newspapers. The Guardian revealed that Murdoch was first contacted in 2013, but the police ceded to his lawyers’ request that any interrogation should wait until the Coulson–Brooks trial had finished.
  • Review of Ofcom's List of Larger Parties for Elections Taking Place on 5 May

    Review of Ofcom's List of Larger Parties for Elections Taking Place on 5 May

    Review of Ofcom’s list of larger parties for elections taking place on 5 May 2016 Statement Statement Publication date: 11 March 2016 Review of Ofcom’s list of larger parties for elections taking place on 5 May 2016 About this document This document sets out Ofcom’s decision on the list of larger parties in advance of the various elections taking place in May 2016. The list of larger parties reflects the fact that there are a number of larger political parties which have a significant level of electoral support, and a number of elected representatives, across a range of elections within the UK or the devolved nations. Ofcom’s rules on Party Political and Referendum Broadcasts require certain licensed broadcasters to offer a minimum of two party election broadcasts (“PEBs”) to the ‘larger parties’. In addition, if a party is not on the list of larger parties it can still qualify for PEBs. In summary, we have decided that the existing parties on the list should remain on it. In addition, we have decided that the UK Independence Party should be added to the list in England and Wales, and the Green Party should be added to the list in England for the purposes of the May 2016 London Assembly and London Mayoral elections only. As indicated in the Consultation, following the May 2016 elections we intend to review the suitability of the list of larger parties going forwards and consider what alternative approaches there may be to discharge our regulatory functions. We envisage holding meetings with stakeholders ahead of any consultation about this review.
  • To Consider Motions Submitted by Members of the Council Pdf 153 Kb

    To Consider Motions Submitted by Members of the Council Pdf 153 Kb

    LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY 18th NOVEMBER 2015 MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF LAW, PROBITY AND GOVERNANCE SUMMARY 1. Eleven motions have been submitted by Members of the Council under Council Procedure Rule 13 for debate at the Council meeting on Wednesday 18th November 2015. 2. The motions submitted are listed overleaf. In accordance with the protocol agreed by the Council on 21st May 2008, the motions are listed by turns, one from each group, continuing in rotation until all motions submitted are included. The rotation starts with any group(s) whose motion(s) were not reached at the previous meeting. 3. Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect the Borough. A motion may not be moved which is substantially the same as a motion which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the previous six months; or which proposes that a decision of the Council taken in the previous six months be rescinded; unless notice of the motion is given signed by at least twenty Members. 4. There is no specific duration set for this agenda item and consideration of the attached motions may continue until the time limit for the meeting is reached. The guillotine procedure at Council Procedure Rule 9.2 does not apply to motions on notice and any of the attached motions which have not been put to the vote when the time limit for the meeting is reached will be deemed to have fallen.
  • 2018 Party Registration Decisions-English Version

    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
  • On Parliamentary Representation)

    On Parliamentary Representation)

    House of Commons Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) Session 2008–09 Volume II Written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 April 2009 HC 167 -II Published on 27 May 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) The Conference secretariat will be able to make individual submissions available in large print or Braille on request. The Conference secretariat can be contacted on 020 7219 0654 or [email protected] On 12 November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish a new committee, to be chaired by the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Michael Martin MP and known as the Speaker's Conference. The Conference has been asked to: "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large". It may also agree to consider other associated matters. The Speaker's Conference has until the end of the Parliament to conduct its inquiries. Current membership Miss Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Vice-Chairman) Ms Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North & Stoke Newington) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Mr David Blunkett MP (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside) Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton & Honiton) Mr Ronnie Campbell MP (Labour, Blyth Valley) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) Mr Parmjit Dhanda MP (Labour, Gloucester) Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat, St Ives) Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) Dr William McCrea MP (Democratic Unionist, South Antrim) David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith & The Border) Fiona Mactaggart MP (Labour, Slough) Mr Khalid Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham Perry Barr) Anne Main MP (Conservative, St Albans) Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire) Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour, Conwy) Publications The Reports and evidence of the Conference are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
  • Runmed March 2001 Bulletin

    Runmed March 2001 Bulletin

    No. 326 JUNE Bulletin 2001 RUNNYMEDE’S QUARTERLY Reporting on a Report Since publication of the report on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain in October 2000, Bhikhu Parekh has written and spoken about its content in many fora.1 He has addressed both in print and in person how the report was widely and serially misrepresented by the media at the point of publication, and how the reverberations of that initial coverage persist. Here we publish the text of Professor Parekh’s recent keynote presentation to the annual conference of the Political Studies Association of the UK, held in Manchester on 11 April 2001. Bhikhu Parekh When the report on The Future its major recommendations, it microcosm of British society and is Chair of the of Multi-Ethnic Britain was would be useful to explore what covered all points of view except Commission on published last October, it created the report really said, how and rabid racists at one end and the Future of Multi-Ethnic a bit of a stir, which took many of why it was read in a particular peddlers of revolutionary utopias Britain us by surprise, including those manner in certain circles, and at the other.The published report Photo: Stefano with some experience of public what the whole episode tells us was unanimous – the unanimity Cagnoni life.The report was much about the inescapable tensions being consensual and not a misunderstood, grossly between a rigorous academic product of arm-twisting or subtle misrepresented, and often inquiry and the partisan rhetoric moral blackmail that can easily deliberately distorted.
  • Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? a Comparative Perspective Russell L

    Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? a Comparative Perspective Russell L

    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 Is The ewN York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective Russell L. Weaver Geoffrey Bennett Repository Citation Russell L. Weaver and Geoffrey Bennett, Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective Russell L. Weaver* Geoffrey Bennett** In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,' the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions.2 Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. Alexander Meiklejohn claimed that the decision was "an occasion for dancing in the streets. ' 3 He believed that the decision would have a major impact on defamation law, and he was right. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel 4 actions." The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice.' In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was © Copyright 1993, by LoUIsIANA LAW REVIEW.
  • Management Plan 2012 ‐ 2023

    Management Plan 2012 ‐ 2023

    ST CATHERINE’S HILL & TOWN COMMON MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 ‐ 2023 FINAL DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2012 We value our local countryside for its natural beauty and wildlife. This area has been influenced by past generations and is now cared for by a partnership that will take its needs into account for all to enjoy into the future. St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan – Final Draft St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan 2012 ‐ 2023 Prepared by the St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan Steering Group, including Christchurch Borough Council Countryside Service in association with Jude Smith, Rick Minter and Alison Parfitt. “On behalf of the Steering Group I believe that this Plan brings forward a balanced approach to securing the future management of the habitats and landscape on St Catherine’s Hill and Town Common. This will ensure that the most important features are conserved and enhanced with the active involvement of local people. I therefore commend this Plan to you.” Councillor Sue Spittle Chairman, St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan Steering Group Citation For bibliography purposes this management plan should be referred to as: Smith, J.E., Parfitt A., Minter, R. & Christchurch Countryside Service. 2012. St Catherine's Hill & Town Common Management Plan, 2012 ‐ 2023. Prepared for St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan Steering Group, c/o Christchurch Borough Council, Christchurch. Alison Parfitt Tel: 01242 584982 E‐mail: [email protected] St Catherine’s Hill & Town Common Management Plan – Final Draft CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 Background....................................................................................................................... 1 Work of the Steering Group .............................................................................................
  • Fixed-Term Parliaments Act

    Fixed-Term Parliaments Act

    House of Commons House of Lords Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act Report Session 2019–21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 March 2021 Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 18 March 2021 HC 1046 HL 253 Published on 24 March 2021 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act The Joint Committee was appointed to: (a) carry out a review of the operation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, pursuant to section 7 of that Act, and if appropriate in consequence of its findings, make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of that Act; and (b) consider, as part of its work under subparagraph (a), and report on any draft Government Bill on the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 presented to both Houses in this session. Membership House of Lords House of Commons Lord McLoughlin (Chair) (Conservative) Aaron Bell MP (Conservative, Newcastle- under-Lyme) Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat) Chris Bryant MP (Labour, Rhondda) Lord Grocott (Labour) Jackie Doyle-Price MP (Conservative, Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench) Thurrock) Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour) Dame Angela Eagle MP (Labour, Wallasey) Lord Mancroft (Conservative) Maria Eagle MP (Labour, Garston and Halewood) Peter Gibson MP (Conservative, Darlington) Mr Robert Goodwill MP (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby) David Linden MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East) Alan Mak MP (Conservative, Havant) Mrs Maria Miller MP