Tag Archives: referendum

EU referendum – what the think tanks are saying

Posted on by

Euro Flag iStock_000003625536MediumBy Heather Cameron

With just under a month to go until the UK goes to the polls for the EU referendum, we take a look at what some of the major think tanks have been publishing on the debate.

Immigration and the economy have featured heavily in the referendum campaign. Negative attitudes to immigration, and in particular free movement within the EU has been highlighted as the strongest predictor of opposition to UK membership of the EU. And the possibility of a negative impact on the economy in the event of a ‘leave’ vote has been widely highlighted by the ‘remain’ campaign. Obviously, many of the think tanks have a specific agenda or political leaning, and this is reflected in how they are responding to the Brexit question.

What the think tanks are saying

Civitas has published a number of reports on Britain’s EU membership and how an exit from it would not damage the economy the way some would have us believe. Its most recent report on the trade benefits of EU membership has branded the argument that the European Single Market provides huge trade benefits to the UK as a ‘myth’.

Highlighting the example of Switzerland, Civitas has also argued that Britain could have much to gain from leaving the EU in terms of trade as it would be free to organise its own deals without EU restrictions.

Nevertheless, it also implies that retaining free trade with the EU Single Market, similar to the circumstances of Switzerland and Norway, would be important.

Others that appear to back ‘Brexit’ (Britain’s exit from the EU) have also alluded to the potential importance of the Single Market for trade. According to the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), the only viable option for the UK following a vote to leave the EU is joining the European Economic Area (EEA). This involves participation in the Single Market but from a position outside the EU. It allows for the free movement of goods, capital, services and people with the rest of EU.

Research on the referendum by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has also covered the economic impacts of a decision to leave, in addition to immigration and the financial sector.

Unlike Civitas, NIESR has warned of ‘a significant shock to the UK economy’ if there is a vote to leave the EU, assuming the UK will no longer have a free trade agreement. NIESR analysis suggests that the impact would include lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a depreciation of Sterling, reductions in trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), and a potential fall in consumption and real wages.

Similarly, the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) has argued that Brexit would have a negative effect on FDI. It estimates that Brexit would lead to a 22% fall in FDI over the next decade, which could cause a 3.4% decline in real income – about £2,200 of GDP per household.

Also in its analysis, CEP argues that leaving the EU would lower trade between the UK and the EU because of higher tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. It suggests that the UK would also benefit less from future market integration within the EU. And while it acknowledges the economic benefit of a lower net contribution to the EU budget in the event of a vote to leave, it also suggests that incomes would inevitably fall, offsetting any savings from reduced fiscal contributions to the EU budget: “we consistently find that by reducing trade, Brexit would lower UK living standards.”

In terms of immigration, recent NIESR research suggests that there has been relatively little impact on the UK so far but that a vote to leave the EU could dramatically change immigration and its impact. One article looking at the long term economic impact of a reduction in migration found that a significant reduction in net migration would have strong negative effects on the economy by reducing GDP and thereby impacting on public finances.

The Institute for Public Policy Studies (IPPR) has published a range of material on the immigration and free movement issue. Its most recent report highlights the importance of the issue of EU migration in relation to the upcoming vote. The study found that there are concerns around migrants’ access to welfare, pressure on public services, crime and personal security, and wage undercutting. But at the same time, the advantages of free movement were also noted, in particular opportunities for UK citizens to live and work easily in other EU countries and the benefits of EU migrants filling skills gaps.

Similarly, the Fabian Society has also highlighted the importance of the immigration issue, noting that more than half of voters select it as one of their top three concerns when thinking about the referendum. In testing the effectiveness of both arguments, it was found that while the ‘remain’ campaign is slightly ahead and does well on first impressions, the ‘leave’ arguments seem to have more power to persuade.

Final thoughts

Full Fact is attempting to independently check statements made by both sides of the campaign. But whatever the outcome, we are guaranteed that Europe will continue to be a talking point after 23 June.

If you enjoyed reading this, you may also like our previous posts on political participation and the role of social media and voter turnout.

Follow us on Twitter to keep up-to-date with developments in public and social policy currently interesting our research team.

Idox Elections is one of the premier election service providers in the UK, providing expertise and knowledge across all areas of election management.

Local homes for local people? A referendum in Cornwall could have wider implications for developers of second homes

Posted on by
5801584514_7fba1dc762_o

St Ives, Cornwall. Image by neiljs via Creative Commons

Last year, a review of rural housing policy highlighted the concentration of second homes in rural areas. The study reported that in many coastal communities and villages in England’s national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, second homes make up over a quarter of the housing stock – and in some areas this can be as high as 80%.

From holiday havens to investment vehicles

Around 1.6 million people own second homes (properties that are not the owner’s principal residence) in England and Wales, while in Scotland there are about 35,000 second homes.

Second homes are not a new phenomenon. For many years, rural and coastal properties have been purchased as holiday getaways for city-dwellers. More recently, however, second homes have been snapped up as investments, with many left empty for much of the year.

The pros and cons of second homes

Proponents of second homes point to their positive impacts, including the income, jobs and patronage of services they can generate for hard-pressed local areas. One study has also pointed to the social value of second homes in connecting communities to new skills and knowledge. But critics of second homes claim that they distort the housing market and make it hard for local people to get on the property ladder.

The authors of the rural housing review underlined the effects of second homes on local communities and housing:

“Local people are often unable to compete with these buyers and the need for affordable housing becomes even more acute, but supply is very low. Their exclusion from these villages means there is not a large enough permanent population to support local services. The result is a vicious cycle of decline, leaving behind an ageing and increasingly vulnerable population.”

Changing the rules

The issue has come to a head in the Cornish town of St Ives, where residents will vote next week on a neighbourhood plan that includes a measure reserving all newly-built properties exclusively for local people.

The mayor of St Ives claims that the plan to reserve newly-built properties for locals is crucial to the town’s survival, telling The Guardian:

“You can’t overestimate the contribution of second home owners to the economy, but you have to look at the bigger picture. Where you don’t have a sustainable economy, over time the town will wither away. We don’t want that. We want to maintain a thriving community.”

The 2015 rural housing review recommended that areas experiencing high levels of second home ownership should require a proportion of new homes to be given planning permission with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.

Council Tax discounts

Since 2013, local authorities have had powers to reduce the level of discount awarded for second homes.  Some councils, such as Hertsmere and Perth and Kinross now offer a 10% reduction on second homes, subject to certain conditions. However, Cornwall County Council has abolished its previous 10% discount. The council is so concerned about the rising number of second homes that it also wants to make conversions of properties to second homes subject to planning permission.

A ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’?

Last summer, two other parts of Cornwall gave ‘Yes’ votes to neighbourhood plans, one of which seeks to ensure that new homes do not add to numbers of second homes and holiday lets in the area. A similar referendum took place three years ago in the Devon community of Lynton and Lynmouth, where residents voted to stop the development of new second homes.

It’s possible that St Ives could follow suit, although at least one developer has indicated that it would challenge the plan under human rights law.

The St Ives referendum takes place on 5 May. While other parts of the country are watching the results for the devolved assemblies, local councils and the new mayor of London, the residents of St Ives will be waiting for a decision that could change the face of its economy. But as housing shortages continue to rise up the political agenda across the country, councils, home owners, planners and developers in other parts of the UK will be waiting for the St Ives result with particular interest.

Devolution, for and against: a tale of many cities

Posted on by
Image: The Dickens Museum, by Peter Curbishley via Creative Commons

Image: The Dickens Museum, by Peter Curbishley via Creative Commons

By Rebecca Riley

In his classic quote, Dickens describes a time of great change, and the conditions which were forcing that change: industrial and technological revolution; growth in knowledge and education; oppressed conditions of the working class and lack of hope within a time of great progress. In France this led to revolution, in Britain it led to eras of philanthropy, growth in a new middle class, and extensive governmental and democratic reform within a broader struggle by the establishment to retain power.

Today, we are faced with similar conditions: huge technological change; growing inequality; uneven distribution of power and funds – but the demand for change is coming from the cities and local leadership, not from an oppressed working class. This is creating a resurgence in the call for greater devolution, which has gathered speed since the end of the 20th century. So what are some of the arguments for and against devolution, and what will be the impact?

The ‘for’ argument

Currently Britain has a patchwork of devolved powers, with devolved nations having greater control over local issues. Here local government already makes decisions on local issues and this ensures discussions and decisions are made at the appropriate spatial level. However, unlike other countries such as Canada, this is a combined self- and shared- rule, with central government still able to legislate in the devolved areas (in practice they don’t without the consent of the devolved government). This does, however, lead to one of the greatest arguments for further devolution, as England does not have a similar structure and there is no opportunity for any self-rule. In demographic terms, areas such as Manchester and Wales have similar populations, but Wales has much greater control over its own destiny.

This concentration of effort can streamline the decision making process as decisions are made by the people who know the issues and can implement the solutions. National government is freed up to discuss issues of national importance and the ‘bigger picture’. There is also the potential that decision making at a local level is more effective, because of the greater belief in a common goal by decision makers as they focus on the enhancement of their own local area.

Currently the devolved nations don’t have their own tax raising powers and are still funded via a block grant from central government. Greater powers over taxation could lead to greater competition and ensure money raised in an area is reinvested in that area. However, this could also continue to widen the gap between rich and poor areas.

The ‘against’ argument

One of the arguments against devolution is cost. Devolving decision making from a central system, which has been doing this effectively for a long time, would increase the time taken for decisions and the associated structure changes needed to implement them. And there is a possibility of constitutional instability. What happens if the city or regional government clashes with national government? How does this get resolved? Who do we appeal to? National government?

Current devolution structures are not all the same. Scotland has control over policing, Northern Ireland doesn’t. In Wales some powers are devolved to the assembly not the government, so structures, powers and legislation varies, and therefore the devolved governments are not all equal. This uneven devolved decision making can also lead to a postcode lottery. One of the starkest examples of this is university tuition fees, where a student in England looks at debts in excess of £27k for fees, while Scotland has not introduced them.

Many also see devolution as the start of the break-up of the United Kingdom which would lead to a weakening of the national government, and its position in world politics.

But what do the people want?

The recent Scottish referendum which asked “Should Scotland be an independent country?” returned a no vote with a 10% majority, on an unprecedented 84% turnout. Other referendums on devolution-related topics have fared less well on voter engagement: the Greater London Authority was established with a 72% majority on a 34% turnout; and the last limited devolution referendum in England was in the North East in 2004, where it was rejected, by nearly 80% of voters on a 47% turnout.

The Scottish question was a single issue campaign which people understood and engaged with, unlike the devolution debate in general. This has become enmashed in other policy areas such as health, education and planning, rather than being a single policy debate in its own right.  Generally, there is a lack of discussion with the electorate about what devolution could be trying to achieve:

  • A democratic voice for local areas and the structures needed to do that consistently and fairly;
  • Ensuring decision making is based on knowledge or the needs, requirements and opportunities of the local population;
  • Ability to create competitive local economies, that play to strengths and tackle micro-economic issues;
  • Streamlining government structures and preserving the whole country as an economic power;
  • The need to develop transparent decision making structures, which everyone can engage with;
  • A planning system which ensures strategic decisions are made which support local place development;
  • Ensure access to services, such as education, health and social care meet consistent, national standards but respond to local requirements;
  • Ensure a fair, place-based spending approach, which invests in places without widening the gap between them, and is balanced by social justice.

There are clear arguments for and against devolution, and whereas Dickens popularised political discussion in the nineteenth century by creating a narrative people related to (serialised in ‘cheap’ papers which the growing educated population and new middle classes could access) the majority of the electorate today is not engaged in these discussions. In the run up to the general election, there is a lack of populist narrative about devolution and, as a result, change could be implemented without full democratic participation and an understanding of the impacts.

The Idox Information Service can give you access to a wealth of further information on devolution, democracy and political engagement. To find out more on how to become a member, contact us.

Further Reading:

Manifesto for Local Economies

Devolution: the basics

Devo Met: charting a path ahead

The future of planning and place making

Getting to the heart of devolution in Manchester (new approaches to integrated health and care)

A healthy new direction or a costly gamble? (devolution of health and social care budget to Greater Manchester)

Governing in an ever looser union: how the four governments of the UK co-operate, negotiate and compete

The agenda: devolution (devolution to non-metropolitan areas)

The implications of devolution for England

Is our electoral system going through the biggest change in a generation?

Posted on by

By Steven McGinty

The biggest change in a generation? Quite simply: yes.

Last year, we saw an unprecedented focus on the democratic process, with high profile votes such as the Scottish independence referendum, as well as revolution in the way in which citizens vote through the introduction of the Individual Electoral Registration (IER). It’s likely that this degree of interest in the political system will continue as we move towards the general election in May, with a number of related topics being up for debate.

I’ve therefore decided to highlight some of the most notable election and referendum-related issues, as well as look at which might come up in the general election campaign.

Individual Electoral Registration

The introduction of IER in June 2014 was a major step in the delivery of digital government services. It was implemented to provide a more modern service and to help combat electoral fraud. The IER system is essentially a hub that was built by the Government Digital Service. The hub links up with the Electoral Management Software (EMS) in each local electoral area. There is no central database of voter details and the data has been received and saved locally, and is deleted from the Hub within 48 hours.

Yet although these changes have been introduced to improve the system, Dr Toby James, Senior Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics, suggests that they could have the opposite effect, and lead to reduced levels of voter registration.

Political engagement

The Scottish independence referendum was described by some as a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity, which would have permanently changed the political landscape of Scotland. The plebiscite saw 84.6% of the population voting, the highest turnout a nationwide election has had since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918. The election also gave 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, which resulted in 109,533 young people signing up before polling day.

It will be interesting to see if this high level of political engagement and the lowering of the voting age will be reflected across the UK in the future. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has already accepted proposals by Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to lower the voting age in Holyrood elections permanently; although a House of Lords committee has raised concerns over these plans.

European referendum

The referendum on Europe could potentially be the big issue of this year’s general election. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the Conservative Party have promised to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union if in government. However, the Labour party, at the moment, are against the idea of a European referendum.

Due to the fragmented political environment, it is quite possible that there will be another coalition government. In this scenario, parties will negotiate and smaller coalition partners may change their stance. At this stage, other parities including the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Green Party and the SNP may also have an impact.

The latest polls are too close to call: with Ipsos MORI showing the Labour Party leading the Conservative Party by 1 point and YouGov showing the Conservative Party leading the Labour Party by 2 points. If the Labour Party win, it’s unlikely that there would be a referendum on Europe; however if the Conservative Party win, it’s likely that there will be.

Boundary changes

Boundary changes, although not as high profile as the debate on Europe, could also figure in the next parliament. In 2013, a Conservative backed plan to reduce the number of constituencies was rejected by their coalition partners and the opposition parties.  However, there are currently a number of electoral reviews being carried out by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. For example, North Dorset Council will make changes to their boundaries that will come into force at the local elections in 2015.

Devolution

Greater devolution within England is also expected to be a major general election issue.  Although directly elected mayors have been part of the political landscape since the early 2000’s, not many cities have chosen to introduce them due to low voter turnout. However, in November 2014, the chancellor, George Osborne announced that Greater Manchester would have a directly elected Mayor, who would have a host of new powers for the region. This increase in powers, alongside a greater desire for more local decision making, may lead to a higher voter turnout than has previously been seen. It will be interesting to see if this triggers demands for mayors from other regions.

Police and Crime Commissioners

The spotlight will also be on the role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC). Similar to the mayoral elections, turnout has been very low for PCCs elections, with the average turnout approximately 14.7%. If the Conservative Party wins the general election, it is likely that PCC elections will continue across England and Wales, despite their low turnout. Conversely, if Labour wins the election, it is likely that they will scrap PCCs, arguing that the Conservatives have wasted millions of pounds on PCC elections.

Whatever the result of the UK election, 2015 looks like being another big year for all aspects of elections management and voting.

Idox Elections is one of the premier election service providers in the UK, providing outstanding expertise and knowledge across all areas of election management.

The Idox Information Service can give you access to a wealth of further information on elections, democracy and political engagement. To find out more on how to become a member, contact us.

Further Reading:

5 things we’ve learnt from Scotland’s indyref

Posted on by
SG referendum date announcement

Image from Flickr user Scottishgovernment via a Creative Commons license

By Stephen Lochore and Morwen Johnson

As the consequences of Thursday’s referendum result continue to reverberate across the UK, we look at what the indyref tells us about political engagement and public policy in 2014.

  1. The public will vote, when they feel the issue is important and affects them

The indyref voter turnout of 84.5% was a record high. And this was based on over 97% of the eligible population registering to vote. This contrasts with turnout at other referenda, general elections and particularly local government and European parliamentary elections.

Turnout for the Scottish parliamentary elections of 2011 was just 50.4%. In the UK, in the 2010 general election it was 65.1%. The Scottish devolution referendum in 1997 (which provided the yes vote which created the Scottish parliament) had a turnout of 60.4%; the Welsh devolution referendum the same year had a turnout of 50.1%.

At local level, turnout is even lower. The 2012 Scottish local elections had a turnout of 39.1%; the turnout for the English local and mayoral elections in May 2014 was estimated to be around 35.3% (with the 2014 European Parliament election being held on the same day).

New initiatives such as the 41 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) elected across England and Wales in November 2012 have failed to engage public interest, at least at the ballot box. Turnout was below 20% in most areas – with an average turnout of 15.1%. This despite the fact that the PCCs are responsible for a combined budget of £8bn, and were set up specifically to hold Chief Constables and police forces to account to communities.

Many people have said that they cast a vote in the indyref ‘because they felt it would mean something’ and it was to be expected that more people would vote in a referendum with significant implications and a clearly discernible difference between the two sides. But it’s quite depressing that in elections for political administrations which control the delivery of local services, the perception of representation and accountability seems to have been lost.

The question for political parties, public servants and policymakers is how to communicate about policy choices in a transparent and accessible way, and embed public engagement in day-to-day processes. And that is more difficult to do than when its about campaigning for support for a Yes/No vote on one question.

  1. Young people are capable of exercising their franchise

For the indyref, 16 and 17 year olds had the vote extended to them for the first time. Many campaigners, on both sides of the indyref debate, claimed that voters should consider the potential impact of the decision on future generations.

Across Scotland, there were 109,533 people on the young voters’ register, according to official figures issued on 19 September. This represents just under 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds estimated to be eligible. Issues that were reported of high interest to young voters included tuition fees, but perhaps surprisingly also welfare and pensions.

The Electoral Reform Society has pointed out that young people receive citizenship education at school but face a delay before they can put their knowledge about democracy and rights into practice. The 2006 Power Inquiry emphasised the need to include young people in the political process as early as possible in order to create a basis for greater political engagement in later life.

The question about voting age often hinges on the argument that younger people are not mature enough to think through voting decisions. Engagement in schools during the indyref suggests that this isn’t the case. Campaigners also thought it important due to the perceived potential impact of differences in voting choices by age. This research suggests older people would be more likely to vote No – and the Ashcroft Poll of 3000 people on the night of the referendum showed nearly three quarters (73%) of those aged 65 or over voted No.

Perhaps the indyref can set the precedent for lowering the voting age … with the next reform being votes for prisoners?

  1. Grassroots campaigning and social media brought the debate into the public consciousness

With an office in the centre of Glasgow, we experienced first-hand the very visible campaigning from grass-roots supporters. You may have also noticed that, although we’re focused on knowledge sharing of public and social policy, we didn’t blog on the referendum – there being good, balanced sources already out there such as the ESRC’s Future of Scotland and the UK site.

It’s been clear that there’s been huge interest in the indyref. According to research from the University of Strathclyde, the referendum inspired more than 10m ‘interactions’ on Facebook over a five week period – one of the highest levels of activity that the monitoring company had ever recorded. These types of interactions include comments, campaign group activity and sharing videos and images relating to the referendum.

Although there is the potential for engagement with the referendum to translate into ongoing engagement in local politics or with public policy, there’s probably a larger risk of disillusionment. How will organisations and grassroot movements calling for change sustain momentum after the No decision?

  1. Democracy will always leave some people’s views unrepresented

There was a lot of angst, as the referendum date grew closer and the polls tighter, about the fact that just a one vote majority would be enough to win. Within our first-past-the post electoral system, sometimes described as ‘winner takes all’, it is often the case that the governing party or parties do not have a mandate from the majority of the population. In fact, at UK (Westminster) parliamentary level, no single party after WW2 has won over half the popular vote.

The binary nature of the indyref increased the proportion of voters on the losing side – though conversely, a greater number of options would reduce the mandate of the winning option.

The No campaign might argue that part of democracy is accepting the will of the majority – including at UK level. The Yes campaign alleged that UK politics and governance has systematically failed to respond to the needs of the Scottish people, although we would highlight the fact that people’s needs are rarely homogenous across Scotland, the UK or indeed in any locality.

  1. Evidence is always context-specific and open to interpretation

For any undecided voter, the big decision in the indyref was who to believe. Our team of researchers here at the Knowledge Exchange were sourcing material every day purporting to be ‘evidence- based’ and it was a good reminder that research is rarely impartial. From the design or framing of research questions, to the interpretation put on results, there are numerous opportunities for bias to be introduced. How findings were reported in the media was also a big issue throughout the indyref.

This was exemplified by differing forecasts of the economic strength of an independent Scotland, reflecting different assumptions about key factors such as the future price of oil and the extent of accessible reserves, the transfer of a share of UK debt to Scotland and trends in business investment. One downside of the No vote is that we’ll be deprived of seeing who was proved right!

Concluding thoughts

Society is sometimes characterised as politically apathetic, but the Scottish referendum emphatically refutes that. A simplistic assumption is that people are fed up with politicians and the increasingly similar manifestos of mainstream political parties. A more nuanced conclusion is that campaign-based politics, which encourages people to express their support for a cause or issue, and then allows them to become as active or inactive as they prefer, is a more natural fit to the networked and fractured manner in which people increasingly communicate both at work and in their personal lives.

Indyref witnessed a proliferation of grass-roots groups, particularly among those favouring independence, often organised through social media, for example the Facebook group Scottish Pensioners for Independence. Or the contrasting women together and women for independence networks. The challenge for governments across advanced democracies is how to develop and deploy the interactive tools, digital knowledge and responsive legislative and civic processes needed to tap into informal, fragmented and often transient group activity, while avoiding the danger of only listening to those who network the loudest.

Looking to the future: SURF Conference 2014

Posted on by

Bridge across river Clyde

by Laura Dobie

The SURF 2014 Conference, which took place yesterday, was a lively event which explored regeneration in Scotland from a range of perspectives, including the economy, social justice, and land ownership.

Following on from last year’s SURF Regeneration and the Referendum debate, and with the referendum fast approaching in September, this year’s conference discussed regeneration within the context of the debate for Scottish independence, considering the implications of potential constitutional change. SURF is also working on a regeneration manifesto for the next general election, and Chair Brian MacDonald and Chief Executive Andy Milne invited contributions from delegates to shape this manifesto.

Continue reading →