scholarly journals Incentives for non-participation: absence in the United Kingdom House of Commons, 1997–2015

Public Choice ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoltán Fazekas ◽  
Martin Ejnar Hansen
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The United Kingdom

How Do Campaign Spending Limits Affect Elections? Evidence from the United Kingdom 1885–2019

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER FOUIRNAIES
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Campaign Spending ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Electoral Campaigns ◽  
Limit Formula ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
Legal Constraints ◽  
The Cost

In more than half of the democratic countries in the world, candidates face legal constraints on how much money they can spend on their electoral campaigns, yet we know little about the consequences of these restrictions. I study how spending limits affect UK House of Commons elections. I contribute new data on the more than 70,000 candidates who ran for a parliamentary seat from 1885 to 2019, and I document how much money each candidate spent, how they allocated their resources across different spending categories, and the spending limit they faced. To identify the effect on elections, I exploit variation in spending caps induced by reforms of the spending-limit formula that affected some but not all constituencies. The results indicate that when the level of permitted spending is increased, the cost of electoral campaigns increases, which is primarily driven by expenses related to advertisement and mainly to the disadvantage of Labour candidates; the pool of candidates shrinks and elections become less competitive; and the financial and electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents are amplified.

scholarly journals Parliament and the War Prerogative in the United Kingdom and Canada: Explaining Variations in Institutional Change and Legislative Control

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Lagassé
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Military Deployment ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Legal Control ◽  
Legislative Control

The British and Canadian Parliaments have no legal control over military deployment decisions. Recently, however, governments in both countries have held votes in the House of Commons on expeditionary missions involving combat. In the United Kingdom, this has led to a convention of legislative control of the executive’s prerogative to deploy the armed forces. In Canada, the votes have benefited and enabled the executive, rather than strengthening legislative control. Using Mahoney and Thelen’s (2010) theory of gradual institutional change, this article analyses how and why war prerogative reforms in the United Kingdom and Canada have resulted in different outcomes.

British By-elections, 1950

1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 474-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Scammon
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
General Election ◽  
The Other ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
World War ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
To Come

Since the hard-fought general election of February 23, 1950, the narrow margin of Labor's control of the British House of Commons has been tested at the polls on ten occasions. This number of by-elections to fill vacancies in the membership of the House is a normal post-World War II figure (the previous House saw fifty-two replacements in its four and one-half years of life), although it is somewhat under that of prewar averages. In terms of locale, however, these ten by-elections were atypical. Though the overall distribution within the various parts of the United Kingdom was not unrepresentative (six in England, one in Wales, actually Monmouthshire, two in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland), all vacancies chanced to come in urban areas. Eight of the contests involved borough seats and the other two (West Dunbartonshire and Abertillery, Monmouthshire) were primarily urban in character.

Women and the 2015 General Election: Shattering the Political Glass Ceiling?

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meryl Kenny
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Glass Ceiling ◽  
General Election ◽  
The Political ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Gender Quotas ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Women's Representation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Women’S Representation

While the 2015 General Election produced mixed electoral fortunes for the major parties, the results for women have been historic – 191 women were elected to the House of Commons on 7 May, including a record number of Scottish women MPs. This article reports on the 2015 GE from the perspective of women's representation, providing a gendered analysis of the election campaign and assessing the parties’ efforts to increase the number of women elected in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It argues that while the 2015 elections may have made some cracks in the political ‘glass ceiling’, further increases in women's representation are unlikely without greater commitment by all of the parties and without the use of strong equality measures, including legislative gender quotas.

scholarly journals PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN R V WHITE (LORD HANNINGFIELD) 2016 ALL EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW?

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-139
Author(s):  
Murdoch Thomson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Professional Integrity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy

Enshrined within the Bill of Rights of 1689, parliamentary privilege continues to act as a guarantor of democracy and parliamentary supremacy, by providing a shield from unwarranted interference from the executive, the courts and others. Central to the constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom, the functions and works of Parliament is of paramount importance. Parliamentarians, including Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, when conducting public duties must be safeguarded to ensure the discharge of such parliamentary business is conducted to the highest possible standard without fear or favour but with professional integrity.

Rights of the EU citizens in the context of no deal Brexit scenario

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (16) ◽  
pp. 434-446
Author(s):  
Marta Sobiecka ◽  
Mikołaj Ślęzak
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
And Migration ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973. Just two years later it was on the verge of leaving. There was a first referendum held but 67% of the British citizens voted to remain in the EU. Second referendum on the same issue was held in February 2016. Turnout was 71.8% - more than 30 million people cast their votes and by a slim 51.9% to 48.1% margin voted to leave. There were stark differences across the UK – both geographically and demographically. Also many argued that “leave” campaign was controversial and not related to the EU as a legal entity – more to its recent problems like eurozone and migration crises. Taking into account that there are only couple of days left to the Brexit day of April 12, 2019 (prolonged from original Brexit day of March 30, 2019), the most probable of all Brexit scenarios is no deal as the UK Parliament so far failed to agree on any option. On March 14, 2019 the House of Commons voted to take no deal option off the table, but the UK forgot that this is a default solution that will take place anyway in the absence of any agreement between the UK and the EU – it’s simply not UK’s internal choice to make. What did lead to the second Brexit referendum? Why did the UK question its presence in the EU? What will happen to the rights of EU citizens in no deal scenario that seems to be the most plausible at the moment? These questions will be answered in due course.

Report by Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Hamilton, Assistant Secretaries to the Board of Trade, upon the Accounts and Statements submitted to the Board of Trade, under the “Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870”. (Presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Command.) Ordered by the House of Commons, to be Printed, 10 July 1874

1875 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 390-402 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Human Life ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Life Assurance ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Friendly Societies ◽  
A Company

Sir,—In compliance with your instructions, we have the honour to submit to you the following observations upon the Accounts and Statements submitted to the Board of Trade in pursuance of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870.A “company” is defined for the purposes of the Act to mean “any person or persons, corporate or unincorporate, not being registered under the Acts relating to Friendly Societies, who issue, or are liable under policies of assurance upon human life within the United Kingdom, or who grant annuities upon human life within the United Kingdom.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document