DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Sheffield)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NORTH-EAST REFERENDUM DATA ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared by: Sean Carey Charles Pattie Martin Smith (University of Sheffield) 7 February 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The referendum in the North East held on 4 November 2004 was the first vote to be held that put the option of an elected regional assembly to people in England. This report outlines an analysis of the results of this referendum. The result was a resounding ‘No’, with 77.9% of votes cast going against the proposed elected regional assembly and only 22.1% in favour. There are 23 local authorities in the North East region, and the majority of voters in each local authority voted against an elected regional assembly. The local authority where voters were most in favour was Derwentside in County Durham, with 29.8% voting ‘Yes’. Whilst in Darlington in the Tees Valley a mere 12.9% voted in favour at the referendum, the lowest ‘Yes’ vote in any local authority. The North East has the smallest electorate of the Government Office Regions, with just under 1.9 million voters. The electorates of the local authorities in the North East differ in size considerably, from Teesdale in County Durham with the smallest electorate of 19,887 to the city of Sunderland with a population of 209,195. The region used a system of all-postal voting and 906,367 ballots were cast in the referendum, with an unadjusted turnout of 47.7%. 12,538 of ballots cast were rejected, 1.4% of all ballots cast, which resulted in an adjusted turnout of 47.1%. The turnout for the referendum was relatively high when compared to other elections in the region earlier in the year. Turnout was 5.2 percentage points higher than in the European Parliament election held on 10 June 2004. In the 6 local authorities in the North East that also had local elections on 10 June turnout was on average more than two percentage points higher at the regional assembly referendum. There was variation in turnout between local authorities in the regional assembly referendum. Whilst the overall unadjusted turnout was 47.7%, turnout was highest in the local authority of Alnwick, where turnout was 57.4%, and lowest in Middlesbrough where turnout 42.1%. We have conducted some preliminary statistical analysis on the referendum data by attempting to place the trends in turnout in the context of socio- demographic differences between the local authority districts. We find that there are associations between the distributions of age, education, occupations, economic activity and homeownership. We find that districts with higher levels of turnout are associated with higher proportions of citizens who are older, more educated, in managerial and professional occupations and own their own homes. In two of the four counties of the North east there was a second question asking the voters of Durham and Northumberland how they would like their local government restructured if a regional assembly was established. The voters of Durham narrowly voted for option A, with 50.6% of the vote, which would have abolished the existing district councils and replaced them with a 2 single tier local authority covering the whole of the county. In Northumberland the vote was in favour of option B, with 56.2% of the vote, which would have replaced the existing district council structure with two local authorities, one for the rural north west and another for the more urban south east of the county. The electorate in the two-tier counties was 631,242, with 304,764 ballots cast (valid and invalid ballots) for the local government referendum question, a maximal unadjusted turnout figure of 48.3%. Turnout for the elected assembly question was slightly higher in the two counties that asked two questions in the referendum, compared with Tyne and Wear and the Tees Valley where adjusted turnout was 46.2%. The number of rejected ballots in the referendum for an elected regional assembly was lower than in the European Parliament elections earlier in the year. Overall, 1.4% of ballots cast were rejected in the referendum, compared to 3.7% in the European elections. The majority of rejected ballots occurred before the count, 1.2% of all ballots cast, and a smaller number, 0.2, rejected at the count itself. The number of rejected ballots for the local government question was proportionally higher than for the elected regional assembly question. There were 10,865 ballots rejected for the second question, accounting for 3.6% of all ballots cast. This was the same proportion of ballots rejected in the European elections in June. The biggest difference between the rejected ballots for regional assembly and local government questions, was the number of ballots rejected at the count. 2.5% of all ballots cast were rejected at the count for the local government question, far higher than the 0.2% for the regional assembly question. 3 INTRODUCTION This report aims to provide an analysis of the patterns in the data from the referendum for an elected regional assembly in the North East in November 2004. In particular we focus on highlighting the patterns of the outcome of the regional assembly question and the corollary question on the restructuring of local government in Durham and Northumberland. We also demonstrate some of the main themes in the pattern of turnout across the region, in particular in placing turnout for the referendum in the context of previous referendums in Britain and in previous elections in the North East. We also provide some statistical analysis of selected socio-demographic variation between the council districts and how these may relate to differences in turnout. We have attempted to demonstrate these trends using straightforward tables and figures appropriate for a general audience. REGIONAL REFERENDUM RESULTS The referendum for an elected regional assembly in the North East on 4 November 2004 resulted in an overwhelming vote of ‘No’. Only 22.1% of votes cast were in favour of the elected regional assembly, with 77.9% of votes against, almost a 4:1 ratio. The result was so resounding that it soon led the government to cancel similar referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and Humber. The government had already postponed these in summer 2004, but the result in the North East meant they were not put back on agenda. This outcome bucked the recent trend of high profile referendums resulting in positive votes and constitutional change. The referendums on constitutional change that took place in 1997 and 1998 were all approved by the voters, with a narrow majority in Wales, but comfortable majorities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London. The voters rejected previous referendums on Welsh and Scottish devolution in 19791. The only national referendum to take place in the UK approved remaining in the European Economic Community in 1975. 1. UK constitutional referendums (%) Turnout Yes No EC membership 1975 64.0 67.2 32.8 Scotland 1979 63.8 51.6 48.4 Wales 1979 58.8 20.3 79.7 Scotland 1997 60.4 74.3 25.7 Tax-varying powers 60.4 63.5 36.5 Wales 1997 50.1 50.3 49.7 Northern Ireland 1998 81.1 71.1 28.9 London Mayor 1998 34.1 72.0 28.0 NE regional referendum 47.1 22.1 77.9 1 In the case of Scotland a majority did vote in favour of devolution in 1979, but less than 40% of the electorate that was required. Denver, D. (2002) “Voting in the 1997 Scottish and Welsh Devolution Referendums: Information, Interests and Opinions”, European Journal of Political Research, 41:827-43. 4 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Turnout 'Yes' Vote Scotland 1997 Wales 1997 Northern Ireland 1998 London 1998 North East 2004 Figure 1. UK constitutional referendums compared However, there have also been lower-level referendums in recent years which have resulted in a number of rejections from the voters. 30 local authorities in England held referendums on elected mayors in 2001 and 2002, with 11 voting in favour and 19 against. 7 of these local authorities were in the North East, where voters in Berwick-upon-Tweed, Durham, Sedgefield and Sunderland voted against having an elected mayor and voters in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and North Tyneside, voted in favour. There was a large range in the share of ‘Yes’ votes in the region, from a low of 26.2% in Berwick-upon- Tweed to a high of 84.3% in favour in Middlesbrough. 2. Results of mayoral referendums in the North East in 2001 (%) Yes Turnout Middlesbrough 84.3 34.0 North Tyneside 57.6 36.0 Hartlepool 50.9 31.0 Sedgefield 47.2 33.3 Sunderland 44.0 10.0 Durham 41.0 28.5 Berwick-upon-Tweed 26.2 64.0 Voters in each of the North East’s 23 local authorities voted overwhelmingly against the elected regional assembly. Differences across these authorities ranged from the highest ‘Yes’ vote of 29.8% in Derwentside to the lowest in Darlington of 12.9%. Of the 4 counties that make up the North East region The Tees Valley stands out as having the least amount of support for the proposed elected regional assembly, with an average of just 16.7%. County Durham saw the highest level of support at 27.2%. 5 3. % Vote share for Yes/No regional assembly question by region, county and local authority Yes No Co Durham 27.2 72.8 Chester-le-Street 26.0 74.0 Derwentside 29.8 70.2 Durham 28.9 71.1 Easington 27.3 72.7 Sedgefield 27.7 72.3 Teesdale 18.4 81.6 Wear Valley 25.8 74.2 Northumberland 23.0 77.0 Alnwick 19.2 80.8 Berwick-upon-Tweed 20.7 79.3 Blyth Valley 26.2 73.8 Castle Morpeth 22.0 78.0 Tynedale 19.7 80.3 Wansbeck 27.7 72.3 Tyne & Wear 22.4 77.6 Gateshead 24.5 75.5 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 24.5 75.5 North Tyneside 21.6 78.4 South Tyneside 21.6 78.4 Sunderland 20.0 80.0 Tees Valley 16.7 83.3 Darlington 12.9 87.1 Hartlepool 16.8 83.2 Middlesbrough 19.2 80.8 Redcar and Cleveland 16.4 83.6 Stockton-on-Tees 17.5 82.5 North East 22.1 77.9 6 Figure 2 Vote share for Yes/No regional assembly question by region 30 25 22.1 % 20 15 10 Alnwick Berwick Durham Stockton Tynedale Teesdale Easington Hartlepool Darlington Newcastle Wansbeck Sedgefield North East Gateshead Sunderland Blyth Valley Redcar & Cl Wear Valley Derwentside Chester-le-St Middlesbrough North Tyneside Castle Morpeth South Tyneside LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUM RESULTS Voters in the two-tier local authorities in Northumberland and County Durham were faced with two questions in the November 2004 referendum.
Recommended publications
  • Vote for Sedgefield in the People's Millions!

    Vote for Sedgefield in the People's Millions!

    Published by Sedgefield Development Partnership: Company No: 4312745 Charity No: 1100906 Insert logo in Sedgefield News current month’s colour Produced by volunteers for the villagers of Sedgefield, Bradbury & Mordon November 2005 Vote for Sedgefield in the People’s Millions! Congratulations to Sedgefield The idea is to encourage us to management of the woodland areas Community Association! make more use of the gardens by and some sensitive lighting would They have made it through to providing a safer and more be designed to reduce the the last six in the Tyne Tees pleasant environment. Winning the opportunities for the kind of anti- region for a People’s Millions grant would allow access for elderly social behaviour which can and grant, with their bid to and disabled visitors to be greatly often does take place there. revitalise the grounds and lake improved, with better footpaths So tune in to North East Tonight behind Ceddesfeld Hall. and seating. Importantly, careful (Tyne Tees) on Wednesday 2nd November between 6 - 6:30pm, to vote for the Sedgefield project in the People’s Millions contest. The winner could be awarded up to £50,000 from the Big Lottery Fund! Sedgefield is up against the much larger Wansbeck District Council’s project and they have many more prospective voters, so we need every-one to take the time to vote online or by telephone. Ask all your friends to vote too, and don’t leave it too late - the winners will be announced the next day on North East Tonight. Rainbows skip for Air Ambulance 2nd Sedgefield Rainbows recently presented a £150 cheque to the Great North Air Ambulance’s area co-ordinator, Sue Cave.
  • MAN/00EJ/RTB/2019/0011 Property : 4 Laburnum Road

    MAN/00EJ/RTB/2019/0011 Property : 4 Laburnum Road

    FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00EJ/RTB/2019/0011 Property : 4 Laburnum Road, West Cornforth, Ferryhill, County Durham DL17 9NJ Applicant : Colin Covey and Doreen Covey Respondent : Livin Housing Limited Type of Application : Determination of Right to Buy Housing Act 1985, Schedule 5, Paragraph 11, as amended by Housing Act 2004, Section 181 Tribunal Members : Mr I D Jefferson TD BA BSc FRICS Mrs K Usher Date of Determination : 11 October 2019 Date of Decision 18 October 2019 DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019 1 Decision: The Tribunal is satisfied that the Property is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly persons and that the Respondent is able to rely upon Schedule 5 paragraph 11 of the Housing Act 1985. The Applicant is therefore denied the right to buy. Application and Background 1. The Applicant is the tenant and occupier of the Property and gave notice to the Landlord of intention to exercise the right to buy. The papers are not before the Tribunal but the Tribunal assume that the Application was received. 2. The Landlord then served a Notice (form RTB 2) dated 11 July 2019 on the Applicant under Section 124 of the Act denying the right to buy on the grounds set out in paragraph 11 to Schedule 5 of the Act. 3. By an application dated 26 July 2019 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a determination as to whether the dwelling house is suitable for occupation by elderly persons. 4. The Application was copied to the Landlord. Representations and hearing 5. The Tribunal received written representations from both parties.
  • 7206 Thf London Gazette, 11 September, 19J 4

    7206 Thf London Gazette, 11 September, 19J 4

    7206 THF LONDON GAZETTE, 11 SEPTEMBER, 19J 4. SECOND SCHEDULE. ESSEX. Municipal Boroughs.—Chelmsford: Colches- PROHIBITED AREAS. ter : Harwich: Maldon: Southend-on-Sea. Urban Districts.—Brentwood: Brightlingeea:. The following areas are prohibited areas in Burnham-on-Crouch: Clacton: Frinton-on- England: — Sea: Grays Thurrock: Leigh-on-Sea: Shoe- CHESHIRE. bury ness : Tilbury: Walton-on-the-Naze. County Boroughs.—Birkenhead: Chester: Witham: Wivenhoe. Wallasey. Rural Districts.—Billericay: Braintree—(Civ: Urban Districts.—Bromborough : Ellesmere Parishes of—Feering, Great Coggeshall Port and Whitby: Higher Bebington: Kelvedon, Little C'oggeshall, MarkshalU Hoole: Hoylake and West Kirby: Lower Rivenhall, Fairsted, Faulkbourne, Hatfield. Bebington: Neston and Parkgate: Runcorn. Peverel, and Terling only) : Chelmsford: Rural Districts.—Chester (Civil Parishes of— Lexden: Maldon : Orsett: Rochf ord: Tend." Bache, Backford, Blacom-cum-Crabwall, ring. Bridge Trafford, Capenhurst, Caughall, GLOUCESTERSHIRE . Chorlton by Backford, Croughton, Dunham- County Borough.—Bristol. on-the-Hill, Elton, Great Saughall, Haps- Urban Districts.—C'oleford : Kingswood. ford, Hoole Village, Ince, Lea by Backford, Rural Districts.—Chipping Sodbury: Lyd- Little Saughall, Little Stanney, Mickle bury: Thornbury: Warmley: West Dean. Trafford, Mollington, Moston, Newton-by- Chester, Picto^i, Shotwick, Shotwick Park, HAMPSHIRE. Stoke, Thornton-le-Moors, Upton-by- County Boroughs.—Bournemouth: Ports- Chester, Wervin, Wimbolds Trafford, and mouth : Southampton. Woodbank only): Runcorn (Civil Parishes Municipal Boroughs.—Christchurch : Lyming- of—Acton Grange, Antrobus, Appleton, ton: Romsey. Bartington, Crowley, Daresbury, Dutton, Urban Districts.—Eastleigh and Bishopstoke . Grappenhall, Great Budworth, Hatton, Fareham: Gosport and Alverstoke. Higher Whitley, Keckwick, Latchford Havant: Itchen: Warblington. Without, Lower Whitley, Moore, Newton- Rural Districts.—Christchurch : Fareham by-Daresbury, Preston-on-the-Hill, Seven Havant: Ljonington: New Forest: Romsey.
  • Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Key Findings 5 Methodology 7 Definitions of Social Grade and Area 11 Topline Findings (Marked-up Questionnaire) 13 Introduction This summary report presents the key findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Derwentside District Council area, County Durham. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called in this report ‘districts’) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in a referendum at a later date. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community.
  • Derwentside College

    Derwentside College

    REPORT FROM THE INSPECTORATE Derwentside College August 1997 THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL The Further Education Funding Council has a legal duty to make sure further education in England is properly assessed. The FEFC’s inspectorate inspects and reports on each college of further education every four years. The inspectorate also assesses and reports nationally on the curriculum and gives advice to the FEFC’s quality assessment committee. College inspections are carried out in accordance with the framework and guidelines described in Council Circular 93/28. They involve full-time inspectors and registered part-time inspectors who have knowledge and experience in the work they inspect. Inspection teams normally include at least one member who does not work in education and a member of staff from the college being inspected. Cheylesmore House Quinton Road Coventry CV1 2WT Telephone 01203 863000 Fax 01203 863100 © FEFC 1997 You may photocopy this report. CONTENTS Paragraph Summary Introduction 1 The college and its aims 2 Responsiveness and range of provision 10 Governance and management 19 Students’ recruitment, guidance and support 30 Teaching and the promotion of learning 40 Students’ achievements 50 Quality assurance 61 Resources 70 Conclusions and issues 80 Figures GRADE DESCRIPTORS The procedures for assessing quality are set out in the Council Circular 93/28. During their inspection, inspectors assess the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of provision they inspect. Their assessments are set out in the reports. They also use a five-point grading scale to summarise the balance between strengths and weaknesses. The descriptors for the grades are: • grade 1 – provision which has many strengths and very few weaknesses • grade 2 – provision in which the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses • grade 3 – provision with a balance of strengths and weaknesses • grade 4 – provision in which the weaknesses clearly outweigh the strengths • grade 5 – provision which has many weaknesses and very few strengths.
  • 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The

    2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No. 2) Order 2004 Made - - - - 6th December 2004 Laid before Parliament 10th December 2004 Coming into force - - 31st December 2004 The First Secretary of State, having received a report from the Audit Commission(a) produced under section 99(1) of the Local Government Act 2003(b), in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 99(4) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No.2) Order 2004 and shall come into force on 31st December 2004. (2) This Order applies in relation to English local authorities(c). Categorisation report 2. The English local authorities, to which the report of the Audit Commission dated 8th November 2004 relates, are, by this Order, categorised in accordance with their categorisation in that report. Excellent authorities 3. The local authorities listed in Schedule 1 to this Order are categorised as excellent. Good authorities 4. The local authorities listed in Schedule 2 to this Order are categorised as good. Fair authorities 5. The local authorities listed in Schedule 3 to this Order are categorised as fair. (a) For the definition of “the Audit Commission”, see section 99(7) of the Local Government Act 2003. (b) 2003 c.26. The report of the Audit Commission consists of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission to the Minister for Local and Regional Government dated 8th November 2004 with the attached list of local authorities categorised by the Audit Commission as of that date.
  • Green Infrastructure

    Green Infrastructure

    Wiltshire Local Development Framework Working towards a Core Strategy for Wiltshire Topic paper 11: Green infrastructure Wiltshire Core Strategy Consultation January 2012 Wiltshire Council Information about Wiltshire Council services can be made available on request in other languages including BSL and formats such as large print and audio. Please contact the council on 0300 456 0100, by textphone on 01225 712500 or by email on [email protected]. This paper is one of 16 topic papers, listed below, which form part of the evidence base in support of the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy. These topic papers have been produced in order to present a coordinated view of some of the main evidence that has been considered in drafting the emerging Core Strategy. It is hoped that this will make it easier to understand how we have reached our conclusions. The papers are all available from the council website: Topic Paper 1: Climate Change Topic Paper 2: Housing Topic Paper 3: Settlement Strategy Topic Paper 4: Rural Signposting Tool Topic Paper 5: Natural Environment Topic Paper 6: Retail Topic Paper 7: Economy Topic Paper 8: Infrastructure and Planning Obligations Topic Paper 9: Built and Historic Environment Topic Paper 10: Transport Topic Paper 11: Green Infrastructure Topic Paper 12: Site Selection Process Topic Paper 13: Military Issues Topic Paper 14: Building Resilient Communities Topic Paper 15: Housing Requirement Technical Paper Topic Paper 16: Gypsy and Travellers Contents 1. Executive summary 1 2. Introduction 2 2.1 What is green infrastructure (GI)? 2 2.2 The benefits of GI 4 2.3 A GI Strategy for Wiltshire 5 2.4 Collaborative working 6 3.
  • Local Government Review in the Sedgefield Borough Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Sedgefield Borough Council Area, County Durham

    Local Government Review in the Sedgefield Borough Council Area, County Durham Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Key Findings 5 Methodology 7 Definitions of Social Grade and Area 11 Topline Findings (Marked-up Questionnaire) 13 Introduction This summary report presents the key findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Sedgefield Borough Council area, County Durham. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called in this report ‘districts’) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in a referendum at a later date. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community.
  • THE RURAL ECONOMY of NORTH EAST of ENGLAND M Whitby Et Al

    THE RURAL ECONOMY of NORTH EAST of ENGLAND M Whitby Et Al

    THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND M Whitby et al Centre for Rural Economy Research Report THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST ENGLAND Martin Whitby, Alan Townsend1 Matthew Gorton and David Parsisson With additional contributions by Mike Coombes2, David Charles2 and Paul Benneworth2 Edited by Philip Lowe December 1999 1 Department of Geography, University of Durham 2 Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Study 1 1.2 The Regional Context 3 1.3 The Shape of the Report 8 2. THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE REGION 2.1 Land 9 2.2 Water Resources 11 2.3 Environment and Heritage 11 3. THE RURAL WORKFORCE 3.1 Long Term Trends in Employment 13 3.2 Recent Employment Trends 15 3.3 The Pattern of Labour Supply 18 3.4 Aggregate Output per Head 23 4 SOCIAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DYNAMICS 4.1 Distribution of Employment by Gender and Employment Status 25 4.2 Differential Trends in the Remoter Areas and the Coalfield Districts 28 4.3 Commuting Patterns in the North East 29 5 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE 5.1 Formation and Turnover of Firms 39 5.2 Inward investment 44 5.3 Business Development and Support 46 5.4 Developing infrastructure 49 5.5 Skills Gaps 53 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55 References Appendices 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The scope of the study This report is on the rural economy of the North East of England1. It seeks to establish the major trends in rural employment and the pattern of labour supply.
  • 2001 Census Report for Parliamentary Constituencies

    2001 Census Report for Parliamentary Constituencies

    Reference maps Page England and Wales North East: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 42 North West: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 43 Yorkshire & The Humber: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 44 East Midlands: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 45 West Midlands: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 46 East of England: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 47 London: County & Parliamentary Constituencies 48 South East: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 49 South West: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 50 Wales: Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies 51 Scotland Scotland: Scottish Parliamentary Regions 52 Central Scotland Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 53 Glasgow Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 54 Highlands and Islands Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 55 Lothians Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 56 Mid Scotland and Fife Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 57 North East Scotland Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 58 South of Scotland Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 59 West of Scotland Region: Parliamentary Constituencies 60 Northern Ireland Northern Ireland: Parliamentary Constituencies 61 41 Reference maps Census 2001: Report for Parliamentary Constituencies North East: Counties, Unitary Authorities & Parliamentary Constituencies Key government office region parliamentary constituencies counties
  • PDF (Volume 2)

    PDF (Volume 2)

    Durham E-Theses Local governance, governmental practices, and the production of policy: local strategic partnerships and area-based 'multiple deprivation' in County Durham Scott, David John How to cite: Scott, David John (2008) Local governance, governmental practices, and the production of policy: local strategic partnerships and area-based 'multiple deprivation' in County Durham, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2229/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Local Governance, Governmental Practices, and the Production of Policy: Local Strategic Partnerships and Area-Based 'Multiple Deprivation' in County Durham Volume 2 of 2 David John Scott Ph.D. thesis The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which it was submitted. No quotation from it, or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from it should be acknowledged.
  • Northeast England – a History of Flash Flooding

    Northeast England – a History of Flash Flooding

    Northeast England – A history of flash flooding Introduction The main outcome of this review is a description of the extent of flooding during the major flash floods that have occurred over the period from the mid seventeenth century mainly from intense rainfall (many major storms with high totals but prolonged rainfall or thaw of melting snow have been omitted). This is presented as a flood chronicle with a summary description of each event. Sources of Information Descriptive information is contained in newspaper reports, diaries and further back in time, from Quarter Sessions bridge accounts and ecclesiastical records. The initial source for this study has been from Land of Singing Waters –Rivers and Great floods of Northumbria by the author of this chronology. This is supplemented by material from a card index set up during the research for Land of Singing Waters but which was not used in the book. The information in this book has in turn been taken from a variety of sources including newspaper accounts. A further search through newspaper records has been carried out using the British Newspaper Archive. This is a searchable archive with respect to key words where all occurrences of these words can be viewed. The search can be restricted by newspaper, by county, by region or for the whole of the UK. The search can also be restricted by decade, year and month. The full newspaper archive for northeast England has been searched year by year for occurrences of the words ‘flood’ and ‘thunder’. It was considered that occurrences of these words would identify any floods which might result from heavy rainfall.