DOCSLIB.ORG

Consultation Response to the DCMS Gambling Act 2005: Triennial Review of Gaming Machine Stake and Prize Limits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consultation Response to the DCMS Gambling Act 2005: Triennial Review of Gaming Machine Stake and Prize Limits The Campaign for Fairer Gambling: Consultation response to the DCMS Gambling Act 2005: Triennial Review of Gaming Machine Stake and Prize Limits April 2013 Contents Contents Page number Introduction 3 Background information 4 Evidence of FOBT problem gambling 18 Responses to DCMS questions 38 Referencing 53 Appendices 58 2 The Campaign for Fairer Gambling: Triennial Review Submission Introduction This document is a consultation response to the DCMS Gambling Act 2005: Triennial Review of Gaming Machine Stake and Prize Limits. This response is primarily related to B2 gaming machines in betting shops, which have been more commonly known as Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). The term FOBTs refers to the machines and is used throughout the document. The term “B2 content” refers to the non-B3 content on FOBTs throughout the document. The answers to selected questions in the Review can be found towards the end of the document. All document content, all identified reference links and all appendices are supporting evidence to the answers. Summary B2 content should be removed from FOBTs. This could result in the removal of the B2 machine classification in its entirety. Respondent details The respondent is the Campaign for Fairer Gambling[1], which also operates the Stop the FOBTs[2] Campaign. The Campaign is non-profit with no commercial benefit or motive. It was co-founded and co-funded by Derek Webb and Hannah O’Donnell, who have profited from gambling through the creation and marketing of gambling game content, related litigation proceeds and associated asset sales. They have now sold all house-advantage based gambling game content and have retired from that business. Their business entities Prime Table Games in the UK and the US retains the rights to PTG Poker, which is an improvement to card-room player(s) against player(s) poker. This is not being marketed and has never generated any revenue. Two retained Campaign consultants have also contributed to this response. Matt Zarb- Cousin became addicted to FOBTs at the age of 16. He appeared on a Dispatches TV programme explaining how he was allowed to gamble under-age in school uniform. Adrian Parkinson was a regional manager with Tote Sport responsible for the roll-out of the FOBTs. He witnessed first-hand that gamblers converting to FOBTs were becoming addicted. He appeared on a Panorama TV programme explaining that some shop staff were becoming addicted to FOBTs. This response has been co-ordinated by bcsAgency, who represent the Campaign. 3 Background information History of FOBTs Over 10 years ago there was a tax on betting shop turnover, which also applied to FOBT turnover. This tax was removed and a gross profit tax was introduced[3]. As part of that deal, bookmakers agreed to locate their telephone betting onshore rather than offshore[4]. The bookmakers have since generally reneged on that deal[5], thereby reducing their tax payments in the UK. Removing the betting duty on machines meant that games with lower house advantages could be introduced. Prior to this, machines in licensed betting shops were not generating substantial revenue. By putting roulette on the machines, they became an overnight success. Campaign Consultant Adrian Parkinson was responsible for the two Tote betting shops, Kidlington in Oxford and Addington in London, that were among the first dozen shops to test roulette on FOBTs. Each shop went from hundreds of pounds to tens of thousands pounds cash take on FOBTs within one week. The machines were called Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, or FOBTs. The odds were fixed at pre-set amounts (as opposed to fixed in the sense of rigged). They were considered betting terminals because the betting took place within the premises on terminals that were, crucially, linked to a server located outside the premises. If FOBTs were simply gaming machines with the software inside them they would have been in breach of the law. In 2002 the Gaming Board for Great Britain expressed concerns over the introduction on FOBTs, claiming that the machines were sophisticated tools, with no legal limits on prize money and could fuel the danger of addiction in the betting world. The introduction of casino-style games on FOBTs could have been interpreted as a covert attempt by bookmakers to introduce casino-style gaming into a bookmaking environment. Peter Dean, Chair of the Gaming Board for Great Britain told a leisure machine association convention: "Their proliferation is a breach of the spirit and intent of current legislation.There are special dangers associated with machines because of their potentially addictive characteristics." [Appendix A] In fact, the Gaming Board for Great Britain, the regulator at the time, filed litigation against William Hill related to FOBTs, but did not proceed with the case. To ensure they retained FOBTs, bookmakers argued that gambling was where the gambler was, in the shop, not at 4 the out-of-shop server. But they had taken an entirely opposite position regarding their remote (internet, online or mobile) gambling entities. These entities argued that gambling was at the server, not where the gambler was, and some had obtained “paid legal opinions” to support this position. This meant that these entities could justify doing business anywhere, regardless of the view taken by the relevant authority pertaining to its legality. So bookmakers took opposite legal positions to maximise their commercial opportunities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) ignored this anomaly. The bookmakers agreed to draw up a Code of Conduct in order to avoid legal issues. Suppliers of FOBTs assisted the bookmakers and set up conditions that would have no impact on the profitability of FOBTs. The main conditions were to set a maximum stake of £100, a maximum prize of £500 and a maximum of four FOBTs per shop. Other conditions in the Code of Conduct included restricting the casino table game content to roulette only and not allowing credit or debit card transactions on FOBTs. However, these conditions were circumvented as blackjack and other casino table games were added and the ability to make a service counter deposit by credit or debit card for remote loading onto the machine was already planned. During the Code of Conduct prior to formal legalisation, FOBTs were “put on probation” according to DCMS[6]. But DCMS did not explain who the probationer was, or how the probation would be conducted. The so-called “probation” was vacuous and unsubstantiated, its purpose to espouse the pretence that adequate monitoring of FOBTs would take place. DCMS wanted to ensure the proliferation of gaming machines that had occurred overseas did not happen in Britain, so the Code of Conduct limited each shop to four FOBTs. But DCMS did not have to legalise FOBTs, and could have refused betting licenses to bookmakers on that basis. Following the final implementation of the 2005 Gambling Act in 2007, FOBTs had become known as B2 machines. The software could now be contained within the machine itself, so the betting terminals had evolved into gaming machines. In 2011, the DCMS select committee recommended lifting the cap of four FOBTs per betting shop. Despite visiting just one betting shop during their inquiry, the committee visited both Australia and Macao. One committee member was Philip Davies MP, who has since been 5 the subject of an inquiry carried out by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards related in part to non-declaration of a financial benefit from Ladbrokes when questioning the CEO of Ladbrokes in that committee hearing[7]. The select committee had two special advisors. One of them, Peter Collins, was an academic advocate of super-casinos. His Salford research facility receives annual funding from bookmakers. The other special advisor was Steven Donahue, son of Lord Donahue, who with Philip Davies MP is a member of the All Party Betting and Gaming Group. The government sensibly rejected the committee’s proposal to remove the restriction of four FOBTs per betting shop. Another significant aspect of the approval of FOBTs was the research commissioned by the bookmakers’ trade association, the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB). The research was independently and professionally conducted and independently and professionally peer- reviewed [Appendix B]. However, the peer-reviewers noticed a discrepancy in the weighting, which was subsequently questioned. The survey in the betting shop had been conducted on the busiest days. Whilst this might make sense from a time and cost perspective, it meant the research was skewed. Simply, on Saturday, premium racing and sports attract the casual gamblers who bet once a week on those activities. FOBT gamblers and core over the counter gamblers are just as likely to be in a betting shop on any other day. Therefore, the research was over-representative of “over the counter” gamblers and under- representative of FOBTs gamblers, the very group that the survey was designed to be researching. Therefore, the research commissioned by the ABB was flawed. The ABB is now asking DCMS to maintain the status quo on FOBTs. But the reality is DCMS should never have allowed this status quo in the first place. So the status quo should not be the recommended government policy. 6 Actions of the ABB against the Campaign The ABB has made representations to the DCMS in the pre-consultation stage and will certainly do so in the Triennial Review itself. But these representations must be put into some context. It should always be remembered that the ABB is a trade organisation acting solely in the commercial interests of its members. Firstly, the ABB has written to MPs and national newspaper editors criticising the Campaign. One of their assertions is to state or imply that the Campaign has some form of commercial benefit, interest or motive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 501 25 November 2009 No. 5 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 25 November 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 513 25 NOVEMBER 2009 514 my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and House of Commons Arran (Ms Clark). In a letter I received from Ofcom, the regulator states: Wednesday 25 November 2009 “Ofcom does not have the power to mandate ISPs”— internet service providers. Surely that power is overdue, because otherwise, many of my constituents, along with The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock those of my colleagues, will continue to receive a poor broadband service. PRAYERS Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend makes some very important points about the decision-making powers and architecture [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] that will ensure we achieve 90 per cent. broadband penetration. We are trying to ensure that the market provides most of that, and we expect that up to two thirds—60 to 70 per cent.—of homes will be able to Oral Answers to Questions access super-fast broadband through the market. However, the Government will have to do additional things, and my hon. Friend can make the case for giving Ofcom SCOTLAND additional powers; but, again, we are absolutely determined that no one be excluded for reasons of geography or income.
    [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]
  • The Conservative Party's Credibility Deficit Updated Tax and Spending
    The Conservative Party’s credibility deficit Updated tax and spending commitments April 2010 2 Contents Page Introduction 5 Summary 7 Methodology 8 Tables 10 Broken promises 13 45,000 new single rooms in the NHS 15 5,000 new prison places 19 Reducing taxes on savings 22 More places for science courses, training and apprenticeships 24 Maternity nurses for all 25 Reinstate the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) 28 National Loan Guarantee Scheme 30 Tax cuts 33 Corporation tax and investment allowance changes 35 Freeze council tax for two years 38 Reduce employers’ NICs for some small companies 41 Tax cuts for married couples 43 Inheritance tax cuts 50 Reverse impact of abolition of dividend tax credit 53 Tax reversals 57 Raise National Insurance Contributions thresholds 59 Oppose Broadband levy 61 Oppose cider duty increase 63 Tax increases 65 Non-domicile levy 67 Spending reductions 73 Cut Government “waste” 75 Savings on employment and skills programmes 78 Reduce spending on Building Schools for the Future 83 Reduce eligibility for tax credits 85 Reduce eligibility for Child Trust Funds 88 Reduce government spending on consultants and advertising 90 Reduce “bureaucracy” spending by a third 92 Welfare savings 95 Scrap ContactPoint 98 NHS IT Programme 100 Freeze pay and cap pensions for public sector workers 103 Reduce spending on Sure Start outreach workers 105 3 Scrap some Regional Development Agencies 107 Scrap regional assemblies 109 Scrap identity cards 110 “Cutting the cost of politics” 112 Scrap the Trade Union Modernisation
    [Show full text]
  • DFID Annual Report 2008
    House of Commons International Development Committee DFID Annual Report 2008 Second Report of Session 2008–09 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 10 February 2009 HC 220-II [Incorporating HC 945-i, -ii and -iii of Session 2007-08 Published on 19 February 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 International Development Committee The International Development Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for International Development and its associated public bodies. Current membership Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) (Chairman) John Battle MP (Labour, Leeds West) Hugh Bayley MP (Labour, City of York) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Richard Burden MP (Labour, Birmingham Northfield) Mr Stephen Crabb MP (Conservative, Preseli Pembrokeshire) Mr Mark Hendrick MP (Labour Co-op, Preston) Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Marsha Singh MP (Labour, Bradford West) Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove) Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North) and Sir Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) were also members of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 527 11 May 2011 No. 155 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 11 May 2011 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 1145 11 MAY 2011 1146 12. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): House of Commons What progress has been made on the Government’s commitment to undertake a process similar to the Wednesday 11 May 2011 Calman commission on devolution funding; and if she will make a statement. [54363] The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan): Following the yes vote in the referendum on further PRAYERS powers, we have started to consider the scope and form of such a process. Now that the elections to the National [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Assembly have taken place I intend to discuss the process with other stakeholders and the First Minister. May I also take this opportunity while I am at the Dispatch Box to offer our congratulations to Carwyn Oral Answers to Questions Jones, who is currently considering forming the Welsh Assembly Government and has the largest party in the Welsh Assembly? WALES Mary Macleod: Our priority in Wales and elsewhere The Secretary of State was asked— right now is to ensure that the deficit is under control.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Society
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee The Big Society Seventeenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume II Oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume III, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/treascom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7 December 2011 HC 902-II [Incorporating HC 716] Published on 14 December 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith, and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Alun Cairns MP (Conservative, Vale of Glamorgan) Michael Dugher MP (Labour, Barnsley East) Charlie Elphicke MP (Conservative, Dover) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Robert Halfon MP (Conservative, Harlow) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Greg Mulholland MP (Liberal Democrat, Leeds North West) Priti Patel MP (Conservative, Witham) Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes) The following members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Nick de Bois MP (Conservative, Enfield North) Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Z675928x Margaret Hodge Mp 06/10/2011 Z9080283 Lorely
    Z675928X MARGARET HODGE MP 06/10/2011 Z9080283 LORELY BURT MP 08/10/2011 Z5702798 PAUL FARRELLY MP 09/10/2011 Z5651644 NORMAN LAMB 09/10/2011 Z236177X ROBERT HALFON MP 11/10/2011 Z2326282 MARCUS JONES MP 11/10/2011 Z2409343 CHARLOTTE LESLIE 12/10/2011 Z2415104 CATHERINE MCKINNELL 14/10/2011 Z2416602 STEPHEN MOSLEY 18/10/2011 Z5957328 JOAN RUDDOCK MP 18/10/2011 Z2375838 ROBIN WALKER MP 19/10/2011 Z1907445 ANNE MCINTOSH MP 20/10/2011 Z2408027 IAN LAVERY MP 21/10/2011 Z1951398 ROGER WILLIAMS 21/10/2011 Z7209413 ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL 24/10/2011 Z2423448 NIGEL MILLS MP 24/10/2011 Z2423360 BEN GUMMER MP 25/10/2011 Z2423633 MIKE WEATHERLEY MP 25/10/2011 Z5092044 GERAINT DAVIES MP 26/10/2011 Z2425526 KARL TURNER MP 27/10/2011 Z242877X DAVID MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2414680 JAMES MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2428399 PHILLIP LEE MP 31/10/2011 Z2429528 IAN MEARNS MP 31/10/2011 Z2329673 DR EILIDH WHITEFORD MP 31/10/2011 Z9252691 MADELEINE MOON MP 01/11/2011 Z2431014 GAVIN WILLIAMSON MP 01/11/2011 Z2414601 DAVID MOWAT MP 02/11/2011 Z2384782 CHRISTOPHER LESLIE MP 04/11/2011 Z7322798 ANDREW SLAUGHTER 05/11/2011 Z9265248 IAN AUSTIN MP 08/11/2011 Z2424608 AMBER RUDD MP 09/11/2011 Z241465X SIMON KIRBY MP 10/11/2011 Z2422243 PAUL MAYNARD MP 10/11/2011 Z2261940 TESSA MUNT MP 10/11/2011 Z5928278 VERNON RODNEY COAKER MP 11/11/2011 Z5402015 STEPHEN TIMMS MP 11/11/2011 Z1889879 BRIAN BINLEY MP 12/11/2011 Z5564713 ANDY BURNHAM MP 12/11/2011 Z4665783 EDWARD GARNIER QC MP 12/11/2011 Z907501X DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI MP 12/11/2011 Z728149X JOHN ROBERTSON MP 12/11/2011 Z5611939 CHRIS
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Women Mps in Westminster Photographs Taken May 21St, June 3Rd, June 4Th, 2008
    “The House of Commons Works of Art Collection documents significant moments in Parliamentary history. We are delighted to have added this unique photographic record of women MPs of today, to mark the 90th anniversary of women first being able to take their seats in this House” – Hugo Swire, Chairman, The Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art. “The day the Carlton Club accepted women” – 90 years after women first got the vote aim to ensure that a more enduring image of On May 21st 2008 over half of all women women's participation in the political process Members of Parliament in Westminster survives. gathered party by party to have group photographs taken to mark the anniversary of Each party gave its permission for the 90 years since women first got the vote (in photographs to be taken. For the Labour February 1918 women over 30 were first Party, Barbara Follett MP, the then Deputy granted the vote). Minister for Women and Equality, and Barbara Keeley MP, who was Chair of the Labour Party Women’s Committee and The four new composite Caroline Adams, who works for the photographs taken party by Parliamentary Labour Party helped ensure that all but 12 of the Labour women party aim to ensure that a attended. more enduring image of For the Conservative women's participation in the Party, The Shadow Leader of the House of political process survives Commons and Shadow Minister for Until now the most often used photographic Women, Theresa May image of women MPs had been the so called MP and the Chairman “Blair Babes” picture taken on 7th May 1997 of the Conservative shortly after 101 Labour women were elected Party, Caroline to Westminster as a result of positive action by Spelman MP, enlisted the Labour Party.
    [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]