DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2011 English Local Elections – Labour’S Continuing Recovery?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 2011 English Local Elections – Labour’S Continuing Recovery? Institute of Local Government Studies The 2011 English local elections – Labour’s continuing recovery? INLOGOV Briefing - April 2011 Chris Game The 2011 English local elections – Labour’s continuing recovery? Chris Game There are hardly any iron laws in political science, but, picking a rather floppier metal, we do have what might qualify as a few tin truths. One is that parties in national government do badly at local elections, as dramatically demonstrated recently in Germany, where the normally conservative voters of Baden-Württemberg threw out Chancellor Angela Merkel’s centre-right Christian Democrats for the first time in half a century, and elected in their place the country’s first Green-led state coalition. It worked almost perfectly with New Labour too – the party’s total of council seats in Great Britain falling every year from 1998 to 2009. But then come the tinny bits – the exceptions, like the (equally floppy) premature comeback modification. In this country at least, the main proposition seems to stop working precisely when least expected. When the governing party’s unpopularity plumbs such depths that it is voted out of office, it simultaneously starts winning back council seats. Thus, as the Conservatives were coming into government in 1979, Labour made its first net gain of council seats since 1974. In 1992, the election John Major was expected to lose, the Conservatives gained seats. They did so again in 1997, as did Labour last year. Though overshadowed by the General Election and its aftermath, Labour’s local government comeback had already begun, with a net gain of nearly 400 seats. Local elections are, of course, primarily about determining local governments and the policies they will implement. They are not mock parliamentary elections. That does not mean, though, that there are no underlying themes to their results and 2011’s key theme will undoubtedly be the scale of Labour’s continuing local recovery and, with two parties in national government, its principal victims. Last spring, even before Cleggmania, life for local government Liberal Democrats was pretty good. They had comfortably outpolled Labour at the 2009 county elections. They had more English councillors than Labour, ran many of its erstwhile urban strongholds – Newcastle, Liverpool, Sheffield, Hull, Oldham, Rochdale, Bristol – and were in minority or shared control in numerous others – Birmingham, Leeds, Kirklees, St Helens, Wolverhampton, Derby, Exeter, Cardiff, Swansea. In London, polls suggested they could add to the eight boroughs they already governed either singly or jointly. That, however, was as good as it got. Gains of seats and councils were outweighed by losses, with Labour the chief beneficiary. Councillor defections, again mainly to Labour, began immediately and increased through the year, as did disaffection, with the Coalition Government’s policies or simply its existence. The party’s poll ratings plummeted and currently flounder on the brink of single figures – representing a swing to Labour of nearly 12% since the pre-election polls in 2007, when most of this year’s seats were last contested. [1] The comparable swing to Labour from the Conservatives has been around 6%, and between them those two swing percentages provide the statistical backdrop to the English local elections, summarised in the table. Both parties are frantically spinning down expectations: Nick Clegg preparing his troops for a ‘remorseless battering’, and Conservatives talking of losing at least the 900-plus seats they gained in 2007. Elections to 279 English councils, 5th May, 2011 Seats Councils controlled No Overall contested Con Lab LD Other Control 36 Metrop. boroughs 1/3 3 16 2 15 30 Unitaries All 14 6 - - 10 19 Unitaries 1/3 6 2 3 - 8 126 Districts All 132 5 17 4 36 68 Districts 1/3 Totals 155 29 22 4 69 As noted, Labour’s recovery started last year. In addition to recapturing 10 London boroughs, Labour took Liverpool (last Labour majority: 1998) back from the Lib Dems, plus Coventry (2003) and St Helens (2004) from No Overall Control, while the Lib Dems lost their majority control of Sheffield (2007) and Rochdale (2003). This May it will again be control changes in the bigger urban authorities that will attract most attention – as indeed they do in this briefing – even though all the mets and many unitaries are electing only a third of their councillors. Metropolitan boroughs The Lib Dems’ big remaining northern bridgehead is Newcastle upon Tyne (2004). The Conservatives’ 12 to 15% vote leaves them unrepresented on the 78-seat council, so arithmetic is easy. With the 12% swing since 2007 showing in the polls, Labour would gain the 5 seats required for an overall majority – just. To hold on, therefore, the Lib Dems must out-perform the polls, as they habitually did before they joined the national government. Stockport, the Lib Dems’ longstanding metropolitan flagship, has lately developed leaks – of both defecting councillors and internal strategy documents (‘Stockileaks’). If Labour is ever to become even the largest party, it must be now, but it is challenging from third place in most of the 13 seats Lib Dems are defending. On the other hand, Lib Dems will recall another exception to the proposition with which this briefing opened: the local trumps national modification. Parties in national government do badly in local elections, except where the chief challenging party itself runs the local government. The Lib Dems captured Sheffield from Labour in 1999, almost as soon the Blair Government took office, followed by Oldham a year later. Come 2003, though, when Labour was losing urban councils by the handful, it regained majority control of Sheffield and OIdham – before losing them again, as the main law reasserted itself, four years later. [2] The Conservatives, after losing majority control last year in Bury, North Tyneside and Solihull, are left with just three mets – Walsall (2000), Dudley (2003) and Trafford (2003) – of which Trafford may prove the most secure, having as it does the least Conservative-held marginals. There are fewer safe wards for anyone in the two West Midlands boroughs, and the Conservatives could lose overall control in both on swings of well under 10%. 15 metropolitan councils are under what is generically termed No Overall Control – 7 run by minority administrations (1 Lib Dem, 1 Conservative, 5 Labour), the rest by assorted coalitions. Labour’s tastiest trophy would surely be Sheffield, Lib Dem since 2007 and parliamentary base of Nick Clegg. A 5% swing would win it. Conservative Bury (2006) is bidding to become the ultimate enabler, with no services at all provided from the town hall, but by a combination of private companies, voluntary groups and possibly other councils. A two-seat switch (401 votes in 2007) would make Labour the largest party, so shame on any stay-at-home voters claiming it makes no difference who runs the council. Labour’s minority-run mets include two mid-term acquisitions. Almost simultaneously last December, Labour displaced Conservative/Lib Dem coalitions in both Rochdale, following no fewer than 8 Lib Dem resignations, and Wolverhampton (2008), with Lib Dem assistance in a vote of no confidence. Labour must hope, through election or defection, to regain majority control of both, Wolverhampton being the safer bet. In Bolton (2003), with Labour holding half the seats already, that hope will be an expectation. Bradford (2000) is bigger, has more smaller parties – Greens, BNP – and majority control there would need at least a 10% swing from the Conservatives. Kirklees (1999) has become a rare, genuinely three-party council and is likely to remain so. Of the glorious array of power-sharing arrangements, those Labour will be most confident of ending by winning majority control are probably Leeds (2004 – now Lab/Green) and Oldham (2007 – LD/Con). Birmingham (2003) and Wirral (2002), both Con/LD, seem out of reach, this year anyway, although the key first step of again being the largest party should be attainable. Birmingham is obviously the bigger prize, but Wirral would be particularly satisfying after last year, when the Lib Dems, after losing 5 seats, appeared to follow their national leadership by ending their 3-year power-share with Labour and forming a ‘Progressive Partnership’ with the Conservatives, giving the borough its first Conservative leadership in 24 years. Meanwhile, Calderdale (1998) and Solihull were moving in the opposite direction, as Conservative minority and majority administrations respectively were displaced by LD/Lab coalitions. Calderdale’s should have the longer life – though probably not one to challenge Sefton’s record. It has been run for 25 years now by a 3-party (currently LD/Lab/Con) coalition, which survived a brief threat by Labour to withdraw, and could now be set for the next quarter-century. [3] Unitaries The ‘all-out’ unitaries most likely to change control include Redcar and Cleveland (2003), which Labour will hope once again to run on its own, without Independent assistance; Brighton & Hove (2003), where both Labour and the Greens will be aiming to overturn the Conservatives’ minority control; and York (2003), where eight years of Lib Dem rule look set to end. Milton Keynes has been Lib Dem-run for even longer and stands a better chance of staying so. The numbers are better, Labour is in a poor third place, and, unlike in York, Open University students aren’t locally registered voters. Then there is the curiosity of Stockton-on-Tees. After losing majority control in 2007, Labour remained comfortably the largest party and ended up in a power-share with the Conservatives, after the latter had failed to put together a rainbow coalition with the Lib Dems and the assorted local Independent Associations that hold a quarter of the seats on this council.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Morrison: Essential Public Affairs for Journalists 6E
    Morrison: Essential Public Affairs for Journalists 6e CHAPTER 1: THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION AND MONARCHY TABLE 1A MAIN ENTITLEMENTS LISTED IN BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 Freedoms for all ‘Englishmen’ Sanctions for Roman Catholics Freedom from royal interference with the law— Ban on Catholics succeeding to English throne— sovereigns forbidden from establishing their own reflecting the supposed fact that ‘it hath been found courts, or acting as judge themselves by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince’ Freedom from being taxed without Parliament’s Obligation on newly crowned sovereigns to swear agreement oaths of allegiance to Church of England Freedom to petition reigning monarch Freedom for Protestants only to possess ‘arms for Bar on carrying weapons defence’ Freedom from drafting into peacetime army without Parliament’s consent Freedom to elect MPs without sovereign’s interference Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail Freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial TABLE 1B RULES GOVERNING MONARCHICAL SUCCESSION IN THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT 1701 Details Protestants only The Crown should pass to Protestant descendants of Electress Sophie of Hanover (first cousin once removed of Queen Anne, who inherited throne after deaths of Mary and William) No marriages to Catholics Monarchs ‘shall join in communion’ with Church of England and not marry Roman Catholics England for the English If anyone not native to England inherits throne, the country will not wage war for ‘any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England without the consent of Parliament’ Loyalty from the Crown No monarch may leave ‘British Isles’ without Parliament’s consent (repealed by George I in 1716) Openness before Parliament All government matters within Privy Council’s jurisdiction (see p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence and Evolution of City Deals in Scotland
    The emergence and evolution of City Deals in Scotland David Waite, Duncan Maclennan, Graeme Roy, Des McNulty Abstract There is a resurgent policy emphasis on the role of city-regions as drivers of economic growth. Officials and leaders in such metropolitan areas, however, are confronted with challenges relating to administrative fragmentation, achieving alignment with national policy objectives, and demonstrating the capabilities to plan, finance and deliver effective policy interventions and investments. As a response to these challenges, policymakers are fashioning new governance arrangements, attached to experimental policy mechanisms, to develop urban policy. Of note, City Deals have recently emerged in the UK, and this paper charts their evolution across the UK, with a focus on the devolved administrations in particular. The paper ends with some reflections and questions about their roll out in Scotland. Acknowledgements The authors are members of or provide research support for the Glasgow Economic Commission, which is linked to, but independent of, the Glasgow City-region City Deal. This paper reflects the views of the authors only, writing in their academic capacities, and not the views of the Commission or any other body. I The UK context Changing institutional arrangements have been a persistent feature of the urban policy landscape in the UK, as the challenge of addressing uneven economic performance across and within UK city-regions remains (Centre for Cities, 2015; Tyler et al., 2017; McCann, 2016). It is clear that there has been both churn over time in the tools, strategies and approaches set out to address this issue (Jones, 2010; Pike et al., 2015) as well as marked contrasts between England and the now devolved administrations of the UK (Maclennan et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Local Government Studies 40 (4) 2014 Elected Mayors
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Northumbria Research Link Local Government Studies 40 (4) 2014 Elected Mayors: Leading Locally? John Fenwick and Howard Elcock Introduction The directly elected executive mayor has now been a feature of English local government for more than a decade. Drawing inspiration from European and American experience the elected mayor has appealed to both Labour and Conservative Parties in offering an apparent solution to perceived problems of local leadership. For some on the Left, it offered a reinvigoration of local democracy, a champion for the locality who could stand up for the community: in one early pamphlet, a Labour councillor envisaged that an elected mayor could ‘...usher in a genuinely inclusive way of doing civic business as well as giving birth to an institution that encourages and values people’ (Todd 2000, p 25). This perspective was concerned with enhancing democracy rather than improving management. For the centre-Right, and for New Labour, it offered the opportunity to cut through the lengthy processes of local democratic institutions by providing streamlined high-profile leadership. Although there were different and perhaps inconsistent political expectations of what the new office of mayor would bring, Left and Right shared a view that the leadership of local areas, rooted in nineteenth-century committee systems, was failing. Despite the very low turnout in referendums on whether to adopt the executive mayor system, and the very small number of local areas that have done so, the prospect of more elected mayors, with greater powers, refuses to exit the policy arena.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Governs Britain - Democracy in Action? Directly Elected Mayors in England Susan Finding
    Who governs Britain - Democracy in action? Directly Elected Mayors in England Susan Finding To cite this version: Susan Finding. Who governs Britain - Democracy in action? Directly Elected Mayors in England. Mé- moire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain. Cahiers du MIMMOC, Université de Poitiers ; MIMMOC, 2015, Who Governs in the Americas and in Europe?, 10.4000/mim- moc.2288. hal-02023205 HAL Id: hal-02023205 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02023205 Submitted on 12 Jul 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain Cahiers du MIMMOC 14 | 2015 Who Governs in the Americas and in Europe? Who governs Britain - Democracy in action? Directly Elected Mayors in England Susan FINDING Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/mimmoc/2288 DOI: 10.4000/mimmoc.2288 ISSN: 1951-6789 Publisher Université de Poitiers Brought to you by Université de Poitiers Electronic reference Susan FINDING, “Who governs Britain - Democracy in action? Directly Elected Mayors in England”, Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain [Online], 14 | 2015, Online since 28 August 2015, connection on 21 June 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Mps' Expenses and Allowances
    in Public Life on Standards Committee MPs’ expenses and allowances MPs’ expenses and allowances Supporting Parliament, safeguarding the taxpayer Committee on Standards in Public Life November 2009 November 2009 November Cm 7724 Twelfth Report Chair: Sir Christopher Kelly KCB Cm 7724 Spine Twelfth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life Chair: Sir Christopher Kelly KCB MPs’ expenses and allowances Supporting Parliament, safeguarding the taxpayer Report Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty November 2009 Cm 7724 £26.60 MPS’ exPeNSeS aNd aLLowaNCeS © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please contact the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected]. ISBN: 9780101772426 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2332086 11/09 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. 2 PRefaCe Preface 4 November 2009 Revelations about the expenses regime in the House of Commons have corroded public trust in the integrity of Parliament. The reputation of individual MPs and confidence in the way we are governed have both been seriously damaged.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    University of Huddersfield Repository Gleaves, Helen Votes at 16 and Youth Political Engagement: Young People in Kirklees Original Citation Gleaves, Helen (2019) Votes at 16 and Youth Political Engagement: Young People in Kirklees. Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34950/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ Votes at 16 and Youth Political Engagement: Young People in Kirklees Helen Gleaves A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc by Research in Politics and International Studies. The University of Huddersfield May 2019 i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/ or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “Copyright”) and she has given The University of Huddersfield the right to use such Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of the Black Vote in 2015
    POWER OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 2015 The Changing Face of England & Wales Parliamentary seats and their voters Sponsored by Table of Contents 3 Foreword - Simon Woolley 4-5 Executive Summary 6-7 List of Marginal Seats Measured by BME Impact 8 Voting and turnout 9 Methodology 10 BME Population 11 Individual BME Communities 12 Labour’s Challenge 13 Conservative’s Opportunity 14 Lib Dem’s Watershed 15 MP’s Vulnerable to BME Vote 16-63 Analysis of Parliamentary Seats © Operation Black Vote - August 2013 Researched, written and designed by Lester Holloway 2Assistance from Louise Alexander Changing Face of Britain Foreword lack and minority ethnic unemployment, education, Bvoters have been handed health and housing. the greatest opportunity ever What is also interesting about to effectively engage in British this data is the shift of where politics. BME political power has been. In Our groundbreaking research the past it was almost exclusively clearly shows that the BME vote in urban, inner city areas which could easily decide over 160 seats. barely changed political hands. The Coalition Government has Today this change is not only oc- governed the UK with a working curring in urban areas such as majority of just 83 seats. The data Croydon, Harrow and Ealing but that we are publishing therefore also outside urban areas, such speaks volumes; In a 168 marginal as Corby, Rossendale & Darwin, seats the BME electorate is larger Cheadle and Loughborough. than the majority in which the With this report we relish the seat was won. The BME electorate challenge to inspire an often cyni- could influence an even greater cal electorate to engage as never number of seats if, as predicted, before, and simultaneously to the election contest becomes ever inform our political leaders that tighter.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Local Government Work for Women? Interim Report of the Local Government Commission April 2017
    Does Local Government Work for Women? Interim Report of the Local Government Commission April 2017 Town Hall Andrew Bazeley – Fawcett Society Jennifer Glover – LGiU Lauren Lucas – LGiU Nan Sloane – Centre for Women and Democracy Polly Trenow Design by Sian at D. R. ink, www.d-r-ink.com © The Fawcett Society 2017 Contents Executive summary 4 About us 11 Acknowledgements 11 Commissioners 12 The Commission 13 Methodology 14 Part 1: Data on Women’s Representation in Local Government 15 Women Councillors and Candidates in England 15 Women Councillors and Candidates in Wales 21 Women in Leadership 23 Part 2: Survey of Councillors 29 How Representative is Local Government? 29 Why Do Women Stand, and What Impact Do They Have? 32 What Barriers do Women Councillors Face? 33 What Solutions Do Women Councillors Want To See? 37 Conclusions and Next Steps 40 Appendix 1: Councils in England and Wales 42 Appendix 2: Councillor Counting Additional Tables (England) 43 Appendix 3: Women Councillors in English Local Authorities 46 Appendix 4: Women Councillors on Welsh Local Authorities 52 Appendix 5: Independent Councillors in Welsh Local Authorities 52 Appendix 6: Experience Of Councillors In Local Government Survey 53 www.fawcettsociety.org.uk | Does Local Government Work for Women? | April 2017 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Only a third of councillors in England are women. Our analysis reveals that this figure has scarcely changed over the last two decades. Even fewer women progress to lead their councils. Councils do not reflect the diversity of our society, and disabled and ethnic minority women experience multiple discrimination. New survey data reveals that within this male-dominated environment, sexism is worryingly commonplace in the council chamber and local parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Election of the City Mayor Candidates Booklet
    2019 © ELECTION OF THE Leicester City Council Leicester City Mayor THURSDAY 2 MAY 2019 leicester.gov.uk/elections2019 Introduction On Thursday 2 May 2019 electors in Leicester will have the opportunity to vote for the person they want to be city mayor of Leicester until 2023. On the same day you can also vote in the city council elections. The law* requires us to send this booklet to every registered voter in the city. It includes: • an overview of the role of the elected city mayor • an election address – or statement – from each of the mayoral candidates who wish to be included • information on the voting process for the elected city mayor and on how the result is calculated • frequently asked questions about elections and the voting process. 2 ELECTION OF THE CITY MAYOR leicester.gov.uk/elections2019 There are seven candidates standing for city mayor. Statements from six of them can be found on pages 16 to 27. Stuart Ian Eric Young, UK Independence Party (UKIP), is also standing but did not provide an address to be included in this booklet. Your vote is important in deciding who the future city mayor of Leicester will be. Please note that each election address is the responsibility of the relevant candidate and the text, photographs and pre-prepared artwork (where applicable) have been supplied by them. The views expressed are theirs and the content cannot be attributed to the returning officer or Leicester City Council. As required by law, the returning officer has drawn lots to decide the order in which the candidates appear in this booklet.
    [Show full text]
  • New Model Mayors Democracy, Devolution and Direction Nick Hope and Nirmalee Wanduragala
    New Model Mayors Democracy, Devolution and Direction Nick Hope and Nirmalee Wanduragala www.nlgn.org.uk New Local Government Network (NLGN) is an independent think tank that seeks to transform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities. NLGN is publishing this report as part of its programme of research and innovative policy projects, which we hope will be of use to policy makers and practitioners. The views expressed are however those of the authors and not necessarily those of NLGN. © NLGN January 2010 All rights reserved Published by NLGN Prepared by NLGN First floor, New City Court, 20 St. Thomas Street, London SE1 9RS Tel 020 7357 0051 . Email [email protected] . www.nlgn.org.uk New Model Mayors Contents 3 Contents Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 5 1 The case for directly elected mayors 8 2 Reinvigorating democracy through open mayoral primaries 21 3 Devolution and greater incentives for mayoral leadership 33 Conclusion 53 4 New Model Mayors Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the elected mayors and chief executives who provided their comments and insights on an earlier draft of this report that went out for consultation. We are grateful to those in the NLGN team who provided constructive feedback and support throughout the writing of this pamphlet. We would also like to like to extend particular thanks to Belinda Moreau-Jones for her intellectual input and research support. The views expressed, however, are those of the authors and any errors or omissions are, of course, our own. New Model Mayors Introduction 5 Introduction The New Local Government Network has been a strong proponent of directly elected mayors for over a decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Having a Party
    summer2016 leicester.gov.uk leicesterlink Having a party A dream Your Leicester City Mayor's What’s day newsletter review on P4 P7 P13 P46 2 leicester.gov.uk | summer 2016 | LEICESTER LINK FEATURE P4-5 hat can you say about what has happened in Leicester over the W past few months? Extraordinary, unbelievable, inspiring… Leicester City’s triumph in the Premier League has been hailed as the greatest feat in team sport ever, contents anywhere in the world. None of us will forget the extraordinary scenes of joy here over the past 4-5 39 HAVING A PARTY ALL ABOARD few weeks, especially at the victory parade and Not your usual The new Haymarket party on Victoria Park. Monday night Bus Station It’s a monumental achievement by the club, the players and the fans, who have certainly played 7 41 their part. It’s also hugely significant for the city, YOUR LEICESTER PUBLIC HEALTH Sign up to our new Good food for young tums; raising our profile and bringing in thousands of email newsletter get active in Leicester visitors. We particularly look forward to welcoming European fans for Champions League matches 42-45 8-11 next season! NEWS YOUR CCG Turn to pages 4 and 5 for more photos from the Passport to museums, Big Pages from the local NHS parade and to page 48 for details of the Fearless Friendly Read and more 46-51 Foxes exhibition at New Walk Museum. WHAT’S ON 13-29 This issue of Link also features my city mayor's CITY MAYOR'S 51 review – a round up of council activities over the REVIEW COMMITTEE past year and a brief look ahead to what's coming up.
    [Show full text]
  • Questionnaire (5MB)
    BES 2014-2023 Waves 1-16 Questionnaire British Election Study 2014-2023 Combined Waves 1-16 Internet Panel Codebook University of Manchester { University of Oxford 1 BES 2014-2023 Waves 1-16 Questionnaire Introduction The British Election Study 2019-2023 is managed via a consortium of the University of Manchester and the University of Oxford. The Scientific Leadership Team is comprised of Professor Ed Fieldhouse, Professor Jane Green, Professor Geoff Evans, Dr Jonathan Mellon and Dr Christopher Prosser. The team is supported by Dr Roosmarijn de Geus. The previous 2014-2019 British Election Study team was also led by Professor Hermann Schmitt and Professor Cees van der Eijk. Wave 1 30,590 respondents took wave 1. Wave 1 was conducted by YouGov between 20th February 2014 and 9th March 2014. Wave 2 30,219 respondents took wave 2, 26,870 of these also took wave 1. The overall wave on wave retention was 88.9%. Wave 2 was conducted by YouGov between 22nd May 2014 and 25th June 2014. Wave 3 27,839 respondents took wave 3 of the British Election Study, 24,016 of these also took wave 2. The overall wave on wave retention was 79.4%. In total there are 21,471 respondents who took all of the first three waves of the survey, 71.0% of the respondents who originally took wave 1. Wave 3 was conducted by YouGov between 19th September 2014 and 17th October 2014. Wave 4 31,328 respondents took wave 4 of the British Election Study. 23,542 of these also took wave 3.
    [Show full text]