Warm homes and wind farms

Stephen Hall, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Policy, University of Leeds

Labour has committed to investing £400 billion across the UK in energy generation, energy efficiency, transport and the natural environment. The party has promised to ensure local people have a say in where funding should go.

Of all the spending commitments the most expensive, and yet the one that makes the most sense, is the commitment to retrofit the UK’s 27 million homes to a high energy efficiency standard. This national programme might take up to £200 billion to complete, but with 70% of British houses poorly insulated, the economic benefits are massive. People in these homes waste over £400 on gas every year while losing much of that heat through leaky walls. Retrofitting homes would employ hundreds of thousands of people across the UK. The resulting health benefits of warmer homes could save the NHS billions.

Labour promised to provide ‘warm homes for all’ by retrofitting houses with insulation, solar panels and heat pumps. 

Labour also committed to a huge expansion of renewable energy. Anyone who lives in my region, Hull and East Yorkshire, knows someone who works on the wind farms. Rebuilding the electricity sector around renewables offers a huge jobs boost and ensures clean and affordable energy for the long term.

I’m not convinced Labour needs to nationalise “” energy companies to deliver its investment programme – it could end up taking on a lot of market risk as the UK’s energy demand and consumption patterns change. But the point of the nationalisation is noble: to protect the jobs of workers in those companies and to put an end to unfair market practices, such as overcharging already fuel-poor households.

Bold plans indeed, and there are inevitable risks to public finances. That said, as the manifesto claims, the cost of doing nothing is far higher.

Labour has pledged to build 7,000 new offshore wind turbines and 2,000 onshore. 

Path to net zero carbon emissions in the 2030s

Marc Hudson, Researcher in Sustainable Consumption, University of Manchester

Labour’s autumn conference passed a motion agreeing to “work towards a path to net zero carbon emissions by 2030”. It never amounted to a firm, legally binding commitment, but the manifesto version of Labour’s pledge on decarbonisation has certainly been watered down. Labour will now:

develop the recommendations of our “30 by 2030” report to put the UK on track for a net zero carbon energy system within the 2030s – and go faster if credible pathways can be found. We will deliver nearly 90% of electricity and 50% of heat from renewable and low-carbon sources by 2030.

Two things matter here. First, the new 2030 pledge limits its commitment to the energy system – but there are plenty of carbon emissions outside of that. Transport and agriculture would not be included in Labour’s new pledge, which collectively accounted for .

Unions are at the forefront of Labour’s vision for decarbonisation. 

Second, Labour isn’t even aiming for the energy sector to hit net zero by 2030. That could now come as late as 2039. Labour’s decarbonisation targets are still . But in many ways, these longer-term goals are not what we should judge the party on. Debating net zero dates misses the fundamental point that the transition to a zero carbon society desperately needs kick-starting with strong policy action in the next five years.

There are promising announcements – including a windfall tax on oil companies to cover the costs of knowingly damaging the climate. Its recent  report goes into greater depth, listing urgent actions to achieve the party’s long-term aims and acknowledging the need for immediate implementation.

Trade unions  – an unsurprising move to anyone who has been following  in recent decades. But without the support of industry, the promises of Labour – and any other party – are empty. Union backing for what are still ambitious plans may make the difference in translating them into reality.

More buses and trains, less air pollution

Nicole Badstuber, Research Associate in Transport, University of Cambridge

If sustainable transport is the aim, buses are rightly Labour’s priority. Buses are Britain’s most used form of public transport, providing  – that’s 4.8 billion journeys a year. Yet bus services have been choked by service and funding cuts.

 and local government bus funding has halved. Labour promises to , invest in local transport and give free bus passes to people under 25. This is important. Good, reliable and frequent bus services will be crucial for any sustainable transport system.

Labour would give local government the power to strategically manage the bus network and run their own services, undoing legislation that . There are successful examples of both. London has a regulated bus market that has allowed for strategically planned, managed and integrated services. Reading and Nottingham are examples of .

Labour want to expand and invest in Britain’s bus networks to reduce transport emissions. 

Labour also vows to bring rail into integrated public ownership. Today, Britain’s railways are a confusing part public, part private patchwork, with track managed by government and services run by numerous private companies. Rather than compensate these rail operators by ending their contracts early, Labour would take the cheapest route by not renewing them.

New rail links would also be built, such as a Crossrail for the North and the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway to Scotland, which is currently only committed to running from London to Birmingham. New railways for fast services free up capacity on the “old” railways for more frequent and reliable local services. Improving rail links – particularly local links – is key to encouraging people out of their cars.

To tackle air pollution, Labour proposes to electrify the railway network, encouraging rail freight, ending combustion engine vehicle sales by 2030 – ten years ahead of the Conservatives’ 2040 pledge – and investing in electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Labour doesn’t rule out expanding London’s airport capacity though, seemingly at odds with their rhetorical commitment to decarbonise transport.

Labour understands that to compete with the car, public transport needs to be improved. But the manifesto falls short of committing to directly discourage driving, such as congestion pricing, motorway tolling or banning new road building. Perhaps this is politically wise. Talk of curbing car use is rarely popular.

Rail networks could be renationalised under a Labour government. 

Money for wildlife and a crackdown on cruelty

Mike Jeffries, Associate Professor in Ecology, Northumbria University

Labour is promising legally binding targets for restoring habitats and biodiversity. After a decade in which central government funding for nature conservation has , the prospect of a £250 billion green transformation fund is very positive.

, and the manifesto suggested repurposing agricultural funding to support habitat recovery and sustainable food production. Labour alludes to the green belt being “threatened by development” but remains quiet on how its approach would differ. A new “environmental tribunal” to ensure decisions are consistent with environmental obligations could quickly become bogged down in ambiguities.

The UK’s wildlife may be , but government agencies, NGOs and even enthusiastic citizens are very good at managing local conservation efforts. Trying to marry their collective expertise with the central plans, funds and tribunals could get messy.

Labour remain committed to keeping fox hunting banned. 

But the fact that Britain’s wildlife is addressed in the first few pages of the manifesto shows how seriously political parties are now taking the ecological crisis. Turning the big ideas into reality will be the challenge.

Rather simpler is the list of things that Labour promises to ban or crack down on – ,  and . Politicians underestimate the animal vote, . Labour appears unlikely to make the same mistake.

This article is republished from  under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Countries, like people, have , and that’s remained true of Britain since the EU referendum of 2016, regardless of the divisions that have hardened since.

Precisely identifying what a country’s identity is can be a difficult process, but Britain certainly imagines itself to be a major international player, focused on upholding the rules-based international order. Under that overarching identity, there are a host of other identities at play – some of them longstanding, but two of significant importance that have only emerged since that referendum: Leave, and Remain.

on Brexit identities published by the UK in a Changing Europe research group in January 2019, found that while Remain as an identity appeared later than Leave during the referendum campaign, they are now roughly of equal strength.

Roughly equal numbers of people adhere to both Remain and Leave identities, with about equivalent strength. These identities are also more powerful than other existing political identities, such as party identity. While one in five British people don’t report a party identity, only one in 16 doesn’t report either a Remain or Leave identity.

The electorate are therefore broadly divided between two powerful identity blocs, of roughly equal size. As we saw in the European parliamentary elections, they are strongly polarised – the two parties that finished top of that ballot, the , represent the clearest articulation of each side of this divide.

These identities are deeply and sincerely held on both sides. They are defined in part by a rejection of the other identity, but also by what positive vision they hold for the future. This poses a significant challenge for politicians and civil servants seeking to lead the UK through the process of leaving the EU, and through a host of related policy issues around trade, immigration, and so on.

The polarisation between Leave and Remain is often commented on in dark tones. Many have said that the UK is irreparably divided and therefore dysfunctional to the point of impeding the ability of any one party to govern it effectively.

Others claim that the referendum and then Brexit itself created and then embedded unbridgeable divides between these two large groups of voters. This gap will be near impossible to surmount, particularly as  the same economic data differently.

But there is also reason to believe that some common ground can be found here. Both sides do hold a set of common beliefs. Both, for example, have extolled the virtues of openness. For Leavers, Britain’s membership of the EU was a barrier to being a globally connected and accessible country, for Remainers it was a means to facilitate that.

Both sides have also argued that Britain is an important country in global terms. While Remainers say this is, in part, due to membership of the EU which serves to amplify Britain’s voice in the world, Leavers say it’s despite the country being inside the union, and that Britain’s importance may even be enhanced by leaving. The commonalities here reflect elements of the overarching identities such as Britishness that cross both groups.

The downside is that these concepts might not be firm bases upon which to bring the country together. This can play out in two ways. Either neither side will recognise the other as truly sharing the value that they proclaim. Openness is a good example here. Both sides proclaim that they value openness, but that the other is in favour of being closed off from the world – either because they seek to detach the UK from the EU, or because they seek to keep the UK inside the club.

The other possibility is that, when a common ground issue is used to try and build a consensus, it is co-opted by one side or another, and so the bridge to common ground is lost.

Either way, British politicians will need to try and reunite the country. Indeed, the newly appointed prime minister made it the  – but only after delivering Brexit. Electorally, it will be difficult for him, or any party leader, to get a majority in a general election in a country that is so divided on what has become such a central issue.

When it comes to building public support for policies to tackle the myriad crises facing Britain – from immigration policy to regional devolution – the same problem persists: policies can be perceived radically differently by the two identity groups. Seeking to bridge that gap will be hard.

The way forward should centre on speaking to the common ground that does exist, but also spending more time discussing trade offs and compromise. Johnson does not appear to have adopted this strategy – the  to his government appointments has been to colour it as a more, not less, divisive government, and his rhetoric on Brexit has not shown much sign of compromise.

Public figures from both sides of the Leave and Remain divide will have to discover more overt enthusiasm for compromising if they want to draw the venom out of the Brexit identity clash. Otherwise, governing the UK will continue to be far more challenging that it was before 2016 for some time to come.

, Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy, . This article is republished from  under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

The Chilcot Inquiry’s report will be published on Wednesday 6^th July. The inquiry, which is also known as the Iraq War Inquiry, was commissioned by former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in 2009 to examine the UK's involvement in Iraq.

Here, some of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½’s leading international political and legal experts give their opinion on what the report could say, what it means for Tony Blair and its potential implications and outcomes.

Our experts are available for interview and can provide in-depth comment and analysis pre and post report

is Senior Lecturer in International Politics at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ and an expert in the role media and propaganda can play in the run up to and during conflict. He is author of 'Pockets of Resistance: the British news media, war and theory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq' and has recently published articles .

He argues that, more than anything else, the inquiry needs to address the ‘deception’ that led to the UK’s involvement in the Bush-led coalition:

“A US-led Iraqi invasion was always likely to go badly wrong; the most important issue that needs to be addressed in the Chilcot Report is the question of deception during the run-up to the conflict. Will the inquiry tackle these concerns? This is the key question.

“There is no doubt that there was a deception around how the Iraq war started. This is the big issue and what this report really needs to address. The post-war planning and how it all went wrong are less important.”

is Lecturer in Constitutional and International Law at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ and a . She says that the report could provide the basis for families of victims to take legal action and seek compensation:

“Despite there being some political will, the Inquiry will probably not call for senior figures such as Tony Blair to be prosecuted. Whilst we can certainly expect criticism of the decision making process, it is expected that the report will not take up the legality of individual actions.

“However, evidence from the report could form the basis for future prosecutions, especially for families of victims. This could also allow mass claims for compensation.”

is a trained barrister and Associate Researcher at the . He has also advised governments and NGOs on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

He also says it is unlikely Tony Blair will be prosecuted as, despite anything else, there is actually no legal basis for such action: “Tony Blair, along with his senior political and military colleagues, is highly unlikely to face criminal charges despite leading the UK into a legally dubious war of aggression.

“Those calling for ‘Blair to be sent to The Hague’, such as Alex Salmond and Jeremy Corbyn, misunderstand a fundamental legal hurdle – the ICC does not have jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggression as states have not yet decided on the full definition. In the Britain, the crime of aggression has no legal basis in any part of UK law”.

However, commenting on the legal issues of the war, Dr Robinson adds: “The legality of the war was an important aspect for the British, though not so much for the Americans. So, did Blair really hope the war would be averted peacefully and without regime change, or had he signed up to war regardless? Chilcot’s views on this will be critical.

“If this is true, it raises serious questions about the adequacy of the UK political system and the health of its democracy”.

For further background, Dr Robinson’s blog is available . 

A forecasting model developed by a political scientist from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ and British Election Study using data from Thursday’s local election results forecasts a likely victory for the Conservative Party in the 2020 General Election.

The forecast predicts that at the next general election the Conservatives would win 37% of the vote, Labour 30%, and the Liberal Democrats and UKIP tying on 11%. The predicted probability of Conservatives being the largest party is 92%.

It comes as politicians and journalists vie with each other to make sense of Thursday’s election results.

The model, developed Dr Chris Prosser, correctly predicted a Conservative victory in 2015.

Based on the results of the 2013 and 2014 local elections, the model predicted a 78% probability of the Conservatives receiving the largest share of the vote in 2015.

Dr Prosser argues the results are probably the most accurate way we have to forecast the 2020 election at present.

“Many politicians and political commentators use local elections as barometers of political opinion between general elections, he said.

“Success or failure in terms of overall results are frequently taken to be a ‘triumph’ or a ‘disaster’ for national level political parties and their leaders.

“Though local elections are influenced by local issues, the evidence does indeed suggest they at least partly mirror national politics; this method quantifies that.

“So although we can’t say that the 2020 General Election result will reflect these numbers, we can say it’s probably the best thing we’ve got to go by at present.”

The method forecast future general election outcomes by accounting for predictable variation between local and general elections.

It combines general election with local election vote shares, partisan differences and incumbency effects.

The results which saw the SNP claim a third win in Scottish Parliament, and the Conservatives replacing Labour as the main opposition party in the Scottish Parliament.

Labour retained key councils in England and is likely to be largest party in Welsh Assembly; UKIP gained council seats and won its first Welsh Assembly seats.

Labour's Sadiq Khan is currently ahead on first preference votes in London mayoral election with full results expected later on Friday.

Notes for editors:

The British Election Study is one of the longest running election studies world-wide and the longest running social science survey in the UK. It is managed by a consortium of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, The University of Oxford and The University of Nottingham.

Visit and follow us on Twitter @BESResearch

A blog by Dr Prosser is available on the

Dr Prosser is available for interview

The government’s ‘bedroom tax’ is leaving children hungry and stressed at school, according to a new study by education experts at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½.

In the first piece of research to examine the impact of the controversial welfare policy on children and their education, academics found that the introduction of the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, alongside other cuts in benefits, was having an adverse effect on pupils’ ability to learn and concentrate, with the emotional distress caused by poverty taking its toll on schoolwork.

It also found that forcing children to share bedrooms – required under the government changes which reduce housing benefit for those judged to have ‘spare rooms’- was having a negative impact on schooling by leaving youngsters without a quiet place for homework or undisturbed sleep. It also made afterschool and extra-currciular activities or playdates with friends unaffordable to some parents. 

The qualitative study, which carried out in depth research with a small group of parents, schools and community organisations over a 16-month period, is published by the Manchester Institute of Education at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½.

Experts are warning that it is time for the government to review the policy.

Professor Ruth Lupton, from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “The findings of this study confirm a wider picture emerging from research which points to the bedroom tax failing to meet its original aims while contributing to significant hardship among low-income families.

“Our study suggests that the pressure put on families by this cut in benefits may also be working contrary to other policies that are intended to support child wellbeing and educational achievement, diminishing their effectiveness.”

Professor Erica Burman added: “The government should review its policy. Doing so would show a greater commitment to supporting children, helping parents to maintain their responsibilities, reinforcing communities, tackling educational inequalities and ensuring that the effects of austerity do not fall disproportionately on poor families.”

The government introduced the reductions to housing benefit for those judged to have ‘spare bedrooms’ – a move dubbed the ‘bedroom tax’ - in April 2013, among a raft of benefits changes affecting the incomes of working-age adults. This led to a reduction in housing benefit payments of an average £11-a-week (£572-a-year) for those deemed to have one ‘spare’ bedroom and more for those with two.

The early piece of research from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ found that parents were saving money by cutting back on food, heating and other essentials and foregoing warm winter clothes, shoes and school uniforms for their children as a result of the reduction in benefits. Families were becoming more isolated and children's access to friends and after-school activities were reduced. Some parents said they were regularly going without meals so that their children could eat.

School staff interviewed as part of the study told how children were showing signs of emotional distress caused by the effects of poverty, including seeing the pressure felt by their parents, and that material hardship was adversely affecting their ability to learn.,

Schools and community groups explained how they had responded to the benefit changes by reallocating their finances, staffing and care services to prioritise feeding and clothing children. Pupil premium funding, for example, had been used to extend breakfast clubs, while one school had opened its own account with a shoe shop.

Notes to editors:

Professor Ruth Lupton and Dr Terry Hanley are available for interview

The exploratory research in Manchester was carried out between March 2014 and July 2015. In-depth interviews were completed with 14 parents affected by the ‘bedroom tax’, who had 24 school-aged children between them. Nearly 40 representatives from 20 schools, housing associations and community groups were interviewed, including head teachers, family support workers, housing officers, local faith leaders and youth workers.

The Impacts of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ on Children and Their Education. A Study in the City of Manchester was authored by Jo Bragg, Erica Burman, Anat Greenstein, Terry Hanley, Afroditi Kalambouka, Ruth Lupton, Lauren McCoy, Kate Sapin and Laura Winter (Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester).

The Impacts of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ on Children and Their Education. A Study in the City of Manchester by Jo Bragg, Erica Burman, Anat Greenstein, Terry Hanley, Afroditi Kalambouka, Ruth Lupton, Lauren McCoy, Kate Sapin and Laura Winter (Manchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester October 2015) can be viewed in full .

.

Politics students, irrespective of their level of statistical expertise, now have the chance to analyse the opinions of tens of thousands of people surveyed between February 2014 and May 2015.

The information is made available by the British Election Study, the country’s longest running study of electoral behaviour, and has been substantially expanded to cover the 2015 General Election and other key points in the electoral cycle.

Called the , students can make their own graphs and charts based on six detailed survey waves of up to 30,000 people, from over 400 different variables at the click of a mouse.

Wave 5 of the study was conducted every day during the campaign in the run up to the General Election on 7 May.

Professor Jane Green, BES Co-Director, is from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½. She said: “At the British Election Study we are keen to make our data as widely accessible as we can possibly make it, whether you’re an A-level student, a journalist, or a voter who wants to learn more about democracy.

“We’ve done the hard work for you already: all you have to do is click a few buttons to create graphs and tables from scratch. You’ll be able to edit and download your graphics and study politics by analysing people who participate in it – individual voters, and also people who choose not to vote.”

The Data Playground can help you find out the British public’s attitudes to a range of policies, public spending, the European Union, immigration and other issues you might read about every day in the newspapers.

You can compare attitudes to the demographic details of people who take part in the surveys such as their age, religion and even the newspapers they read.

You can also examine data from England, Wales, and Scotland separately and together.

Professor Green added: “The Data Playground, for the first time in the British Election Study’s history, allows anyone to examine large volumes of topical and recent data without the need for specialist expertise or software.

“We hope students and sixth formers will use it, as it is part of our mission to provide balanced and impartial information about electoral politics, away from the lens of the political parties.

“As academics, we feel it is important to make our research accessible and relevant to the wider community and our belief is that this is a powerful way to do that.”

The British Election Study is managed by a team based at The Universities of Manchester, Oxford and Nottingham. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

NOTES FOR EDITORS

The BES Scientific Leadership Team is comprised of Professors Ed Fieldhouse, Jane Green, Hermann Schmitt, (all Manchester) Geoff Evans (Oxford) and Cees van der Eijk (Nottingham).

The Data Playground is available at . A pamphlet on how to use it is available on request. Please report the source of your analysis as using British Election Study data, and cite if you are a journalist as BES would like to spread the word and get as many people to use this great resource as possible.

If you are a teacher, lecturer or student and want more information about the data playground email mail@britishelectionstudy.com

Follow us on Twitter @BESResearch

in-person survey data has cast new light on how sampling impacted on the 2015 general election polling miss.

BES data closer match to May's result than pre-election polls

The data, released today, reveals a closer match to the 2015 general election Conservative lead over Labour than the pre-election polls, which failed to forecast the scale of the Conservative victory.

The British Election Study 2015 is managed by a consortium of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, The University of Oxford and The University of Nottingham.

Analysis of the new data by the BES team suggests that this closer match was made possible by using probability-based sampling methods and successful targeting of hard-to-reach groups, including non-voters.

The results of the in-person survey have been much awaited, because they have implications for understanding what went wrong with the polls in 2015.

The BES conducts an online panel study following the same 30,000 respondents over time and also an in-person probability based sample of 2,987 people in 300 constituencies.

BES Director Professor Edward Fieldhouse, from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “If sampling and representativeness are important for understanding the 2015 polling miss, this should appear in the in-person post-election BES data.

“Our preliminary analysis points to this as the best explanation for why we get a relatively large Conservative lead over Labour in their sample, unlike the pre-election polls.”

In the BES in-person survey, 40.3% of the voters said they voted Conservative, 32.75% Labour, 7.05% LibDem, 10.61% UKIP and 4.69% SNP.

Professor Fieldhouse added: “We don’t have a perfect sample of the whole population, but our data performs well with respect to lower reported turnout, and a good distribution of age. We think these two factors help us get much closer to the election result, although further research is also needed”.

He continued, “We do not think the results are due to people knowing the outcome of the election either. For this ‘rationalisation’ to occur, we would expect to find more Conservatives the longer from the election the person was interviewed. Our analysis suggests this is not a feature which explains the result”.

The BES team found no evidence for popular explanations, including Shy Tories, late swing or systematically different preferences among “don’t knows”, to explain why the polls were wrong before the election.

The new analysis now points to unrepresentative samples as an important explanation for the polling miss, a problem which is largely offset by the methods used in the BES in-person survey.

BES Research Fellow Dr Jon Mellon, from The University of Oxford, said: “Opinion pollsters are very good at making their samples reflect the general population, using a system of weighting.

“But the general population and the electorate are very different things, because around 40% of adults don’t vote.”

BES Research Associate Chris Prosser, from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “The 40% who don't vote are also less likely to answer political polls

“This means there are too many voters in polls among low turnout groups such as young people.”

In the BES in-person survey, 43% of the under 30s said that they didn't vote. However, polls will often find less than 15% of them saying they didn't vote.

Dr Mellon added: “There are far too many young voters in polling samples and not enough young non-voters.

“Because young people tend to be more Labour leaning, this means we end up with too many Labour voters in the polls, as happened before the election in May.

“This appears to be part of the reason why there was a bias in favour of the Labour party in May."

Notes for editors

In-person survey interviews are conducted face to face, rather than by phone or internet. The most important feature of the BES in-person survey is its sampling method based on probability (constituency types are first selected, then respondents are selected by chance and only those selected are targeted for interview). This differs from samples achieved by samples of people signed up to take surveys, or by the filling of quotas according to target populations based on demographics.

The Crown Prosecution Service, local courts and prisons should be part of the Greater Manchester devolution deal, says the former head of one of Britain’s largest police forces, who is speaking at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ tomorrow (Wednesday).

Sir Peter Fahy, who retired as chief constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) last month, is calling for the criminal justice system to be part of the 'Devo Manc' transfer of powers so that they can be under stronger local oversight. The move would also ensure the efficiencies of working with other agencies can be realised.

During his first public lecture following his departure from GMP, Sir Peter who is an Honorary Professor of Criminal Justice at the University, will also argue that the very low conviction rate for rape and the lack of confidence in victims of sexual abuse to come forward, shows that the way the legal system deals with such cases needs to be fundamentally overhauled.

Ahead of his lecture, Sir Peter said: “I think there should be a much stronger role for a public prosecutor and a revamped local court system built on the need to break the cycle of repeat offending and complex dependency. I am concerned that proposed further cuts to the number of courts in Greater Manchester will further distance the justice system from local people.” 

At the University, Sir Peter is expected to reflect on his rich and varied experiences of policing and public service and will explore how policing has changed over his 34 years service.

He continued: “Revisions of police powers have only come about as a reaction to failed cases and public scandals and there needs to be a more fundamental independent oversight of the progress of investigations and use of police powers as happens in other jurisdictions.

“The impact of public spending cuts already implemented and yet to come, demands that inefficient processes and systems designed in a time of plenty have to be confronted.

“Whilst I acknowledge that the impact of these cuts has been extremely painful, they will be liberating if it means some deep rooted weaknesses in the current justice system has to be confronted.”

The rebelliousness of the suffragettes was a source of inspiration to Britain’s brash punk and post-punk movements, according to a new piece of work from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½.

examines the way Manchester’s most disobedient daughters sparked the flames of social change in women decades after they won the vote - through the way they dressed, the music they used and the writing they published.

The new book brings together a collection of academic essays, photo stories, anecdotes, art and poetry which celebrate and question the history of the early women's rights movement and its present-day legacy in Manchester, the UK and beyond.

It contains chapters on force feeding, modern-day Manchester and the relationship between the tactics used by the suffragettes and those of the feminist punk and post-punk movements more than 60 years later.

, a third year PhD student at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, wrote the chapter entitled ‘Turning the Tables: Repertoires of Agency and Resistance in Manchester’s Feminist Music Production and Distribution’.

She said:  “We know that suffragettes and feminist punks alike squatted, sang, performed and protested  but when you look in more detail there is an even closer alignment between the tactics used to make their voices heard.

“When you look at the methods employed to achieve social change, there are classic examples of demonstration or boycott. There were certain types of tactics that the suffragettes didn’t invent but that they used on a grand scale, not just to achieve their goal of changing the law but to open up the debate and create a space for free discussion - through the clothes they wore, through music they sang and marched to and through their Women’s Press.

“These tactics – or ‘repertoires’ - can be seen again in the feminist punk movement of the 1970s, 80s and 90s which also used music, dress and the 'small press' to express itself and create forums for conversations in a similar way to the independent labels and 'zines (fanzines) of the punk movement. Like the suffragettes much of that came about from a desire to achieve political goals but also to give new, alternative voices a place to be heard.”

Sarah linked the two movements through a piece of work on the roots of feminist music which involved scrolling back through music archives where she found examples of Suffragette tactics in a host of punk and post-punk activity including a performance by Manchester punk band Ludus at the Hacienda, in 1982, the Northern Women’s Liberation Rock Band and the Manchester Against Section 28 Rally in 1988.

Camilla Rotsvik, co- editor of Suffragette Legacy and a fellow PhD student at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “From historians to poets, academics to activists, this edited collection of work showcases the many ways in which the early women's rights movement still has a legacy in Manchester and the world today.

“We found that academics, artists and activists all take inspiration from the suffragette movement, although they also question it. What is the role of the Pankhurst Centre in Manchester today? Why is force-feeding still happening? What do Manchester poets make of the suffragette legacy of their city? Why does Emmeline Pankhurst’s picture hang in a pub by the University? The answers to these questions and much more are found in this eclectic collection of research, art and inspiration.”

With the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester next week, ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ can offer the following experts to speak to the media:

Dr Rob Ford, psephologist and Senior Lecturer in Politics () @robfordmancs

Dr Nick Turnbull, Lecturer and expert on political speeches () @nicktmancheste

Professor Jane Green, Professor of Political Science and co-director of the 2015 British Election Study () @ProfJaneGreen

Professor Andrew Russell, Professor of Politics and former Head of Politics () @PoliBlogManc

ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½'s Democracy and Elections Group and The British Election Study are hosting the following event on the conference fringe:

.

As each day brings a new dimension to Europe’s catastrophic refugee crisis, ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ is able to offer considerable expert analysis on the crisis and the international community’s reaction to it.

The speakers below are experienced communicators, well used to providing quick and accessible commentary, explanation and opinion to the public. They cover various aspects of the crisis including migration, asylum, immigration, international development, international law and politics.

Experts on migration, asylum and immigration

• Dr Jonathan Darling is a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography who can offer expert views on European migration and asylum, managing the migrant crisis in Calais, and possible solutions to the crisis that address the wider issue of refugee resettlement in Europe.
  jonathan.darling@manchester.ac.uk
• Professor Alice Bloch is an expert on undocumented migration, asylum policy and integration. She has done research exploring barriers to the labour market for refugees in Britain and exploring the lives and experiences of young undocumented migrants in England. She is also able to talk about what motivates undocumented migration, migrant routes into the UK and survival strategies in an increasingly punitive environment. alice.bloch@manchester.ac.uk
• Dr Bridget Byrne is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology interested in race and ethnicity in Britain and migration and citizenship. Her book Making Citizens: public rituals and personal journeys to citizenship was published in 2014.
  bridget.byrne@manchester.ac.uk

International development experts

• Mukesh Kapila, CBE, is a Professor of global health and humanitarian affairs. After a career in medicine and public health, Professor Kapila held senior roles with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Overseas Development Administration and was a Special Adviser to the UN in Afghanistan and to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, before becoming the Head of the UN in Sudan. He is a veteran of humanitarian crises and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone.
  mukesh.kapila@manchester.ac.uk
• Dr Tanja Müller is a Senior Lecturer in International Development and one focus of her work is contemporary refugee populations and the quest for global citizenship. She can offer views on the European asylum system and possible political solutions to the current crisis; visual politics and media representations of asylum and migration issues; and wider geopolitical dynamics and the securitization of international development policies. She can also offer expertise on Eritrea, one of the countries in the limelight in the current crisis.
  Tanja.Mueller@manchester.ac.uk

Political experts

• Dr Rob Ford is a political sociologist with expertise in immigration, migration and refugee politics, voting behaviour and support for the extreme right. He’s one of the country’s leading experts on Ukip and a regular commentator in the media.
  rob.ford@manchester.ac.uk
• Dr Maria Sobolewska is a Senior Lecturer in Politics interested in the political integration of immigrants and representation of ethnic minorities in Britain, public perceptions of integration, and the production and framing of public opinion of British Muslims as well as the political parties' responses to diversity and immigration.
  maria.sobolewska@manchester.ac.uk
• Dr James Pattison is a Senior Lecturer in Politics who has written widely on humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect, and the ethics of war. His book, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?, was published by Oxford University Press in 2010.
  james.pattison@manchester.ac.uk

International law

• Jean d'Aspremont is a Professor of International Law who is an expert on the use of force, collective security, statehood and democracy. He acted as counsel before the International Court of Justice and as an expert for constitutional bodies in Arab countries in transition following the Arab Spring.
  jean.daspremont@manchester.ac.uk
• Iain Scobbie is a Professor of International Law who has an interest in international humanitarian law, international adjudication, the role of the International Court of Justice, and the theory of international law.
  iain.scobbie@manchester.ac.uk.

From 14-16 September ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½’s Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute and Save the Children’s Humanitarian Affairs Team are hosting a conference officially associated to the World Humanitarian Summit. It is also formally linked to the International Humanitarian Studies Association.

The International Conference: A Quest for Humanitarian Effectiveness? will reflect on the evolution and consequence of existing approaches to understanding and improving humanitarian effectiveness.  It will contribute to reflections leading to the first World Humanitarian Summit (which will be held in Istanbul on 26 and 27 May 2016). The conference will build an academic and practitioner network and use and #effectiveness

Friday is the second reading debate on Rob Marris's Private Members Bill on Assisted Dying. In general terms it is the same as the Bill brought before Parliament by Lord Falconer before the election.

, a senior lecturer in bioethics and medical Law at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, is available for interview.

Dr Iain Brassington: "If passed, the Act would make it legally permissible for some medical staff to provide for a few people the means for them to end their own lives.  To qualify for such assistance, those people must be terminally ill.  In this respect, Marris's Bill (like Falconer's) differs from that brought before Parliament by Lord Joffe in 2004 - in that Bill, there had been a requirement that patients be suffering unbearably from a terminal illness.  More recent Bills have dispensed with the suffering criterion.

"The major worry that assisted dying Bills face is that patients may be coerced, howsoever subtly, towards dying when that is not what they truly want.  For this reason, it is important that any law has safeguards built into it, while remaining flexible enough to deal with real-world situations.

“The Marris Bill does have a number of such safeguards, including the requirement for a declaration by the High Court that the request for assistance is valid, and a 14-day ’cooling off’ period between that declaration and the provision of assistance.  It should also be noted that, under the current law, a patient could be coerced into refusing life-sustaining treatment: if coercion is a threat, it is already there.

"Assisted Dying of one form or another is now practiced in an increasing number of legislatures - notably The Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon, and Washington State.  Whether the mood in Britain is for a change in the law is less clear: attempts to legalise assisted dying in Scotland have been rejected, and it is possible that the same will happen in the Commons.  It would not be a surprise if this Bill never became law.  But it would not be a moral disaster by any means if it did.”

The partnership will also be able to have new innovations tested and validated for use across all NHS sites in the region – and then share data, learning and costs to improve diagnosis and ensure that patients get the most appropriate treatment. This will then have an impact on the region’s industry from research and development through to manufacturing.

Clive Morris, Director of Health Innovation Manchester, said: “Greater Manchester already benefits from a strong history of research and innovation in health. It is an important life sciences cluster and an eco-system with significant growth potential.

“However, we know that it can take many years for a new innovation to reach routine adoption across the NHS, and that we don’t leverage our skills and capabilities across the whole of the region and across different diseases.

“Our ambition is to solve this by harnessing and building on the collective expertise we have, and working together to develop the very best approaches to address the health needs of Greater Manchester. By working collectively across healthcare providers, academia and industry – more closely than ever before – we can see the potential to accelerate the discovery and development of new innovations and transform the health of our population.”

Councillor Cliff Morris, lead on health for (GMCA), said: “This approach complements and supports our devolution objectives and ambitions around integrated health and social care – allowing people to have more control of their own health – while taking pressure off hospitals and boosting work in the community.”

Sir Richard Leese, lead on growth for GMCA, said: “All these developments are based on firm foundations. Greater Manchester is already recognised as being in the top three UK life science clusters with almost 11,500 people working in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology businesses.

“World-class strengths include a strong research-led university base, six major teaching hospitals, a successful record of clinical trials, rich history of innovation and a wide industrial base. It also has the only accredited Academic Health Science Centre in the UK outside the South East, which is a powerful platform to widen Greater Manchester’s business base and growth.”

Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, President and Vice-Chancellor of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “This partnership will allow new medical discoveries by University of Manchester researchers to have patient benefit much faster, something which is of critical importance to the major health challenges we face as a city. We already work closely with our NHS and industry partners, but HIM means that ideas can move much more quickly from the lab to having an impact on people in Greater Manchester, and ultimately around the world.”

NHS chief executive Simon Stevens said: "Manchester has a proud history of world-leading breakthroughs in medicine and science and this approach will accelerate future gains for patients, hospitals, universities and employers across the region."

The paper identifies the factors which explain Greater Manchester’s prominence in national policy debates and its longstanding status as a model for other city regions: strong and stable local political leadership; pragmatism in its dealings with central government; and a flexible approach to drawing in supporting partners. However, the paper also argues that Manchester’s political leaders have been astute in developing a powerful intellectual case, based on agglomeration economics, which has helped secure the support of successive governments.

This case, the paper argues, is a potent one, but misplaced. “The argument largely ignores the inconvenient fact that some of England’s highest economic growth rates are actually in medium-sized cities. It is similarly quiet about the government’s continuing focus on public investment in London, and instead makes the case for Manchester getting similar preferential treatment. But government funding is not zero-sum. If some areas get more, others get less”.

“The case for a Greater Manchester city region seems to rest on the assumption that areas close to Manchester will benefit from the greater growth and tax revenue the city will supposedly generate as a consequence of preferential government investment, for instance in infrastructure. But we need to keep a careful eye on other potential growth areas outside Greater Manchester, such as Warrington and Chester, to make sure they are not disadvantaged. Similarly, we should be concerned about whether struggling smaller northern towns and cities become further disadvantaged as public investment is focused elsewhere. Are they to be left to hope for trickle-down? It could be a long wait if so,” said Professor Haughton.

Few could have anticipated the surge in support for Jeremy Corbyn, who after getting on to the Labour leadership ballot by the skin of his teeth has become remarkably popular among his party's grassroots. Most Labour supporters have something to say on the Corbyn phenomenon, and opinions range from doom-laden scenarios to a welcome break from the New Labour past. Former PM Tony Blair, unsurprisingly, speaks for the former.

One of the bitterest arguments between the two Labour sides has been over how the nation sees the party in terms of its place in the left-right spectrum. Fellow leadership contender Liz Kendall echoes Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson by arguing that Labour’s election loss could be explained by its leftward drift under Ed Miliband. But Corbyn and his supporters say the nation turned away from Labour for precisely the opposite reason: it was too obsessed with the political centre ground.

Context matters
“What history suggests is context matters: it was OK to be radical when the electorate demanded it in 1945, but in 1997, when Labour’s traditional working class vote had declined and the electorate had grown accustomed to low personal tax rates and interest rates, occupying the centre was the dominant and winning strategy. But what is important is not whether Labour is slightly more to the left of centre, but how this compares with to where voters’ preferences lie, and whether rival parties take a more or less centrist position.”

And from 1997 to 2014?
“The BES is unique in that it can show detailed trends in public attitudes over long periods of time.  And it confirms, as Blair suggests, that today, Labour is now slightly further away from the centre ground with a mean perceived position when he was first elected PM in 1997.”

But what about distribution of voters’ preferences?
“Our data shows that while Labour might be seen as a little off the centre ground, they are not regarded as far to the left as the Conservatives are to the right. Over 20% of voters regard the Tories on the extreme right hand end of our scale. A fair number of 16% put Labour on the extreme left, but a significant minority see them as right of centre.”

What about Labour’s own supporters?
“What we see is that Labour is actually a tiny bit to the right of its own supporters which is the natural place to be for a party on the left that wishes to attract new support. This again compares favourably with the Conservatives, who are regarded, on average, as slightly to the right of their own supporters, and even to the right of UKIP supporters. Indeed only BNP supporters see themselves as more right-wing than the Conservatives. Labour is also to the right of some of its’ competitors in the shape of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.

”The position in relation to the Lib Dems is interesting with the election of Tim Farron, who will undoubtedly shift the  centre of gravity of the Lib Dems to the left and appeal to the many voters lost to Labour in 2015. For Labour to hold on to these new supporters, a shift to the left could be risky. But, since the average position of SNP voters is roughly the same distance to the left of Labour as the Lib Dems are to the  right, the dangers of a rightward shift are just as real.”

How important is ‘Left and Right’ anyway?
“Elections are not just about left and right: our analysis of which party voters are closest to shows that only 12% placed themselves closer to Labour than to any other party. We show that whether Labour turns to the left or whether it takes up Blair’s advice, the impact on its support is minimal either way. Looking at people who would be predicted to vote Labour simply on the basis of left-right proximity at different left-right positions, the share changes from 16.5% at point 2 on our left right scale – very left -, to 18.0% at point 3 and 18.6% at point 4 (just left of centre)..

“Ultimately Labour’s fortunes are unlikely to rest on whether Labour choose a leader to the right or to left, but rather on choosing a leader who can perform the seemingly impossible task of simultaneously restoring the party’s  economic credibility and at the same time appealing to its traditional supporters. What Labour needs is to avoid the ‘left-wing’ label but not necessarily the policies. This requires a leader with popular appeal and a program of progressive polices which can unify opposition to the Conservative government.”

Notes for editors

Graphs and figures are available

Full blog, which is available at   is available on request

For media enquires contact:
Mike Addelman
Communications and Marketing Manager
British Election Study
University of Manchester
0161 306 6901
07717 881567
Visit www.britishelectionstudy.com
Follow us on Twitter @BESResearch

“The Secretary of State’s eloquent speech is long on rhetoric but short on coherence. Let’s be blunt, whilst the Minister has chosen to view her Department’s responsibilities solely through a parochial financial lens – many poor people living in climatically more vulnerable parts of the globe will face the life and death repercussions of her Government’s increasingly weak stance on climate change.

“In evoking the legacy of Margaret Thatcher in support of her Government’s position the Minister demonstrates the contortions she and her Department are having to go through to comply with the Chancellor’s austerity diktat. Since Thatcher’s 1990 speech, global emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, have risen by over 60%. For the UK, consumption-based emissions (including CO2 associated with imports and exports) were up 12% prior to the economic collapse, with the latest post-collapse data still putting UK emissions 1% higher than they were in 1990.

"All this points towards a future with catastrophic levels of climate change. Only an urgent rejection of the incremental escapism that dominates the UK and international policy arena can now deliver the necessary rates of emission reduction. Yet the Minister’s speech acknowledges no such urgency – instead she chooses to focus on how responding to climate change dovetails with the Chancellor’s drive for short-term financial growth. 

“The Minister closes with an assertion that the 2°C goal remains an imperative for her Government. Yet her own policies are premised on the UK’s receiving a hugely inequitable share of the global 2°C carbon budget, alongside the large-scale uptake of highly speculative negative emission technologies sometime in the far distant future.

“Behind the eloquence of the Minister’s rhetoric lurks a UK Government’s position on climate change increasingly informed by a muddled blend of policy machinations and Dr Strangelove technologies, rather than by rigorous analysis. Ultimately there is something deeply concerning about the most vulnerable communities’ being forced to pay the cost of the ineptitude of the banks and the spinelessness of the legislature. Yet it is exactly this approach that informs the scientifically illiterate basis of the Minister’s speech.

Dr John Broderick of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ added: “The message from the scientific community is that we need a new energy system in the next two decades to achieve the economic and ecological security that Amber Rudd speaks of. Anything else is banking on geoengineering on a global scale, a very risky and uncertain strategy that would never be allowed under Margaret Thatcher’s famous “life tenancy”.

“Inconsistencies between words and actions undermine the credibility of leadership. We require more than incremental change so it is short sighted to abandon policies that stimulate new energy industries or guarantee high performance infrastructure. Back-tracking from government directly and indirectly increases the costs and difficulty of avoiding dangerous climate change.”

And Frank Geels, Professor of System Innovation & Sustainability, also at the University of Manchester said: “The recent policy announcements should be seen as part of a longer political trend, partly driven by the right-wing of the Conservative party and partly by the Treasury (which has tried control DECC for several years). No longer constrained by the Liberal Democrats, the new government was able to continue this trend with new energy.

“Despite the recent changes, the government is likely to meet its 2020 targets, because of the momentum of deployment and investment plans that are in the pipeline. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the government has limited post-2020 climate change ambitions, despite repeated calls for this by the Committee for Climate Change. A few years ago, the government’s plan was to increase renewable electricity to about 30%, and achieve further decarbonization with CCS and nuclear power.

“Since then, both CCS and nuclear power have progressed much more slowly than anticipated. So, I would not be surprised if the government in a few years’ time uses this under-delivery to force a debate about the Climate Change Act, arguing that the climate change targets are unfeasible and that the Climate Change Act needs to be removed or watered down. So, the recent policy announcements could turn out to be the first official moves in the ‘long game’ that the Chancellor is playing.”

Notes for editors

Media contact

Sam Wood
Media Relations Officer
University of Manchester
Tel: +44 (0)161 2758155
Mob: +44 (0)7886 473422
Email: samuel.wood@manchester.ac.uk

Entitled ‘Inspirational science for a modern economy’, the campaign demonstrates UK success stories, both in chemistry and physics, where innovations and companies have been formed from university science departments.

The campaign highlights the importance of long-term government funding to science and the benefits it has on the UK economy. The UK science and innovation system produces 15.9% of the world’s most highly cited publications,  despite research and development investment (1.6%) falling behind competitors such as the USA and Germany, who invest 2.8% and 2.9% respectively.

Professor Paul O’Brien and Dr Nigel Pickett founded at the University of Manchester in 2001 to progress the development of quantum dot technology. By 2013, Nanoco had a market capitalisation value of £384m.

Nanoco has been working to develop quantum dots for display applications. TVs containing the company’s heavy metal-free quantum dots were showcased by LG at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2015. Other areas of their research and development include lighting, biological imaging and thin-film solar cell applications. Nanoco is also working in collaboration with University College London (UCL), as part of an Innovate UK-funded project, to develop cadmium-free quantum dots for cancer diagnostics.

Nigel Pickett, CTO, Nanoco Technologies Ltd, said: “As an active member of the scientific community, Nanoco believe in the importance of collaboration between the public and private sector in furthering innovation in the UK. The government plays a crucial role in supporting novel companies that spin out of universities which in turn, have a huge impact on the growth and development of the UK economy.”

Celebrating the value of scientific research, researchers, research councils and companies included in the joint campaign, presented their work to MPs, showing the real power and difference government funding to science can have, both in terms of new discoveries and technologies transforming lives, and also in economic gains.

For more on this case study and others, see the

Notes for editors

Media contact

Sam Wood
Media Relations Officer
University of Manchester
Tel: +44 (0)161 2758155
Mob: +44 (0)7886 473422
Email: samuel.wood@manchester.ac.uk

The largest rise was seen in middle-aged men, 45-54 years old, in whom the increase has been 73%. The report suggests that alcohol and economic factors such as job loss and debt may be contributing to the rise.

, Director of , said: “Our findings show that within mental health care middle-aged men are particularly at risk. The problem is not simply that they don't seek help - they are already under mental health care - so we have to understand better the stresses men in this age group face.”

The NCISH report, commissioned by the as part of the Clinical Outcome Review Programmes, also highlighted the rise in deaths among patients treated under Crisis Resolution or Home Treatment (CR/HT) services, introduced as an alternative to in-patient admission.

Suicides under CR/HT are now three times more common than suicides in mental health in-patient settings in England, with an estimated 226 deaths in 2013.  The number of suicide deaths following discharge from an out-of-area in-patient unit has also risen.

Professor Appleby, who is presenting the findings of the report to health professionals, patients and carers at a launch event on July 22, said:  “Our findings follow reports of fewer mental health beds in England and suggest that this has affected the safety of home treatment for patients who might previously have been admitted. Commissioners and providers should review the safety of their acute services. In particular, admissions of acutely ill people out of area should cease as they are likely to make care planning more difficult and increase suicide risk on discharge.”

The most common type of drug taken in fatal overdose by mental health patients is now opiates - 141 deaths in 2013 across the UK, and a total of 1,215 suicides over the study period. In nearly half of these deaths, the source of opiates is prescription, mainly for the patient, though sometimes for someone else. Those who died by opiate poisoning were more likely to have had a major physical illness. 

, a report author, said: “Healthcare professionals should be aware of the risks from opiate-containing painkillers.  Patients’ access to these drugs should be checked and prescribing should be monitored to reduce the risk of accumulating large quantities at home.

“Better monitoring of physical illness among mental health patients may also help to reduce suicide.” 

The report highlights that working more closely with families could play a greater part in suicide prevention.  Staff reported that greater involvement of the family by the service might have reduced the risk of suicide in 14% of cases, a total of 2,338 deaths over the whole study period - for homicide the figure was higher at 18%.

, a report author, said: “Our findings suggest that families are an under-used but vital resource to reduce suicide and homicide.  Services should work closely with families when preparing for hospital discharge and drawing up crisis plans.  They should be more prepared to listen to a family's concerns and share information with them about a patient's risk."

The launch event runs 10am-1pm on Wednesday 22 July.  A live Twitter feed will be available from and the report will be posted on .

Notes for editors

• Register to receive news releases
• Follow ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ Media Relations Team on
• The latest media videos are on
• The latest news and coverage on
• A record of the University in the news is on
• For other social media, visit our .

Media enquiries to:
Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk

For information on opportunities to undertake further study or research in this field, please visit the .

The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness (NCISH) was established at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ in 1996. NCISH collects information on events leading to suicide, homicide or sudden unexplained death (SUD) in mental health patients and makes recommendations for prevention.

The Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) commissions the Mental Health Clinical Outcome Review Programme, NCISH, on behalf of NHS England, NHS Wales, the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate, the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), and the States of Jersey and Guernsey.

And it seems they never really fell out of favour with political historians agreeing that petitioning goes as far back as ancient Egypt.

The latest research on this historic form of democracy will be put under the spotlight by some of the world’s leading experts at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ next week (June 29/30). This is due to a growing academic interest in the history of petitioning and the rise of e-petitioning. 

The European symposium is being hosted by the Cultures of Politics Research Group based at the University and will unveil new research in the field including the important role it has in political mobilisation within local communities.

Among the speakers will be Dr Henry Miller who is a lecturer in Nineteenth-Century British History. He said: “The aim is for this research to contribute to current contemporary debates about political participation and disengagement.  During the symposium we will examine how ordinary people made use of petitions in the past – they are a universal phenomenon, used across countries and periods and by all groups of people.”

According to Dr Miller petitioning was central to many of the major political and social movements before democracy. He said: “When the UK Parliament abolished slavery in Britain’s Caribbean colonies in 1833, it was largely due to the pressure of petitions.

“Also the campaign for women’s suffrage was initiated in Britain by a petition in 1866 and the 1848 French Revolution was sparked by an attempt to present a petition in the legislature.”

The ‘golden age’ of petitioning in the UK was the 19th century, when thousands of petitions, containing millions of signatures, were sent to the House of Commons every year.

“Petitioning really took off in the medieval period”, said Dr Miller, “and by the time of the English Civil War in the 1640s, it was firmly established.

“Petitions could be about anything, and were often about mundane local or individual grievances. But they could also be about issues of national and international importance, such as the economy, peace and war, democratic reforms, religion, and social policy.”

Dr Miller continued: “The interesting thing is that despite the lack of success that often occasioned petitions, people still petitioned. This was because petitioning had other advantages: it encouraged political participation and mobilisation through public meetings and put issues on the political agenda, even if authority resisted the petitioners’ demands.

“Whether successful or not, the evidence suggests that authorities often took petitions seriously and listened to them, even if they disagreed with the petitioners demands.”

The symposium is supported by ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, Manchester Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence and the Social History Society.

Notes for editors

Any journalists wishing to attend the Symposium or to arrange an interview should contact the Media Relations Office.

Media enquiries to:

Kath Paddison
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 0790
Mob: 07990 550050
Email: kath.paddison@manchester.ac.uk

MigRom - the University of Manchester project to promote understanding of the city’s Roma community - is entering its next phase.

The project aims to help the Roma use council services by providing a strategy for the city’s engagement with the emerging Roma community. This week (24 June) project coordinator Professor Yaron Matras will speak to the City Council’s communities scrutiny committee to coincide with the release of a new council report that flags up The University’s contribution to its Roma engagement strategy.

The report entitled ‘Roma Engagement and Reporting Opportunities’ outlines The University’s contribution to developing an understanding of the local Romani community and its needs as well as drafting and piloting an engagement strategy.

Professor Matras said: “Several thousand Roma of Eastern European background live in Manchester. In the past, Manchester City Council has struggled to engage directly with this community because the community lacked leadership and representation structures. It has also had to confront negative perception and prejudices against Romani culture among some groups of residents and sometimes even among practitioners.

“We hope this project will contribute towards raising public awareness of Roma migrants and providing more accurate information about their culture.”

The University’s MigRom project, in partnership with the City Council, has set up structures to provide advice to members of the Romani community and to assess needs. Through training and networking events, the project is supporting the building of leadership capacity within the Romani community. The MigRom project has also advised the City Council to provide more accurate information that they receive about the Romani community.

Professor Matras continued: “The City Council has now acknowledged our contribution and stated that only substantiated information on Roma will be included in its reports.

“The Council also recognises the new Roma Community Group - Roma Voices of Manchester - which the MigRom project helped set up as one of the principal channels of communication with the Roma community.”

Notes for editors

For further information contact:
Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Leading minds in UK constitutional law will gather to debate key issues in the aftermath of the 2015 General Election.

A series of short, blog-style papers will be delivered by academics from around a dozen leading institutions at the day long UK Constitutional Law Association Conference to be hosted by ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ on Wednesday.

The keynote speaker for the event will be Adam Wagner, of One Crown Office Row and the well-read UK Human Rights Blog who will ask whether it is just a matter of time before the UK can learn to love human rights.

The event takes place 11am – 5pm in the Whitworth Building.

To attend:

Professor Davies was appointed as the first female Chief Medical Officer in 2010, a role which sees her act as the government’s principal medical adviser and the professional head of all directors of public health in local government.

Since taking on the role she has led global action to fight the trend of infections becoming resistant to antibiotics, a trend which in the UK is estimated to kill around 10m people a year globally by 2050.

Speaking to the 800-strong audience she said: “We are in danger of losing modern medicine...

“Antimicrobial resistance is on the government’s risk register along with terrorism, flu pandemics and climate change.  It’s an equivalent threat.”

In her address, she highlighted the complex use of antibiotics in meat production, where antibiotics can be used to compensate for poor hygiene and overuse among the human population.

She also addressed the problem of no new classes of antibiotics marketed that were developed after 1987.  “It is a market issue,” she said. “We expect antibiotics to be cheap yet we only take them on average once a year, so there’s no profit to be made in developing new ones.”

One such initiative has seen the Prime Minister commission University of Manchester honorary professor, Jim O’Neill to look at the reasons for market failure and propose ways that Governments globally could stimulate R&D.

As part of her role, Professor Davies has sought to address the problem, creating new strategies in the UK and with the World Health Organization and lobbying government to fund more research into the issue. 

Dame Sally concluded her speech by encouraging everyone to play their part: “How many people can put their hands on their hearts and say their infection prevention is perfect?

“This is an important issue because when it comes to antibiotics, what we’ve got is what we’ve got.”

See by members of the audience who tweeted on the night.

Dame Sally has written a blog post about this issue for . Click to read it.

Notes for editors

Dame Sally gained her medical degree in 1972 from and was previously a consultant haematologist and professor of haemoglobinopathies at Imperial College London. She developed the National Institute for Health Research and is a member of the World Health Organization Global Advisory Committee on Health Research.

The Cockcroft Rutherford lecture is an annual event for to ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ in honour of two of , Sir John Cockcroft and Lord Ernest Rutherford. Previous speakers have included Professors , , and, Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees. 

• Register to receive news releases
• Follow ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ Media Relations Team on
• The latest media videos are on
• The latest news and coverage on
• A record of the University in the news is on
• For other social media, visit our .

Media enquiries to:
Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk

You can also click to read the full report and watch an exclusive video interview with Dame Sally.

[]

Notes for editors

• Register to receive news releases
• Follow ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ Media Relations Team on
• The latest media videos are on
• The latest news and coverage on
• A record of the University in the news is on
• For other social media, visit our .

Media enquiries to:
Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk

The NHS could achieve up to twice as much with the resources that the Government plans to spend introducing a full seven day service in the NHS in England, according to new research from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½.

Health economists, working with colleagues at the University of York, have used official data to suggest an extra 5,353 deaths each year occur when people are admitted to hospital at the weekend rather than mid-week, but that the £1.43 billion cost of removing this risk would be better spent on other priorities.

Despite a seven day health service being a major priority, few studies have analysed the costs and benefits of implementing this provision fully.  It is known that compared to midweek emergency admissions, patients who are hospitalised on a Saturday are 11% more likely to die and 16% more likely to die when admitted on a Sunday.

Part of the reason is thought to be the reduced availability of senior clinical staff at weekends.

, from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½’s led the study.  He said: “Our estimates show the cost of implementing seven day services in this part of the NHS could be more than double what the official guidance recommends.

“These are likely to be over-estimates. It is highly unlikely that all additional risk to patients would be eliminated and moving consultants and other resources from some days may just move the problem to a different point in the week. Recruiting and training more senior staff will add to costs significantly.”

The estimates were based on mortality figures within 30 days of admission between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011.  Cost estimates were benchmarked against the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standard, which recommends a maximum spend of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained by making a change to a service.

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are a measure of the quality and quantity of life gained which are used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The most which could be spent under NICE guidelines to gain the estimated 36,539 QALYs would be £831m, almost half the amount that the NHS has estimated that seven day services will cost to implement.

The researchers suggest that more work needs to be done to identify smaller scale changes that might be cost-effective. For example, the additional weekend risk for renal failure is 37%, but for pneumonia it is zero.

, the lead author, said: “Funders of healthcare need to make decisions as to where money goes so that it can do most good. The figures we’ve produced in this research would indicate that a blanket approach to removing the risk of weekends might not be the most effective way for the NHS to spend almost £1.5 billion.”

The paper, ‘’ appeared in the journal Health Economics.

The research was funded by The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HS&DR) programme (project number 12/128/48). The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Watch the video below for more on how Professor Sutton and his team work on NHS budgets.

Notes for editors

• Register to receive news releases
• Follow ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ Media Relations Team on
• The latest media videos are on
• The latest news and coverage on
• A record of the University in the news is on
• For other social media, visit our .

Media enquiries to:
Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk

1. The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research (NIHR HS&DR) Programme was established to fund a broad range of research. It builds on the strengths and contributions of two NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which merged in January 2012. The programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services, including costs and outcomes. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS. The HS&DR Programme is funded by the NIHR with specific contributions from the CSO in Scotland, NISCHR in Wales and the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland.

2. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is funded by the Department of Health to improve the health and wealth of the nation through research. Since its establishment in April 2006, the NIHR has transformed research in the NHS. It has increased the volume of applied health research for the benefit of patients and the public, driven faster translation of basic science discoveries into tangible benefits for patients and the economy, and developed and supported the people who conduct and contribute to applied health research. The NIHR plays a key role in the Government’s strategy for economic growth, attracting investment by the life-sciences industries through its world-class infrastructure for health research. Together, the NIHR people, programmes, centres of excellence and systems represent the most integrated health research system in the world. For further information, visit the NIHR website ().

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

In a letter published in the Lancet, the researchers use Office for National Statistics data to show that per head and adjusted for inflation, the population in London, the east and south-east received an increase of £3.02 per person in government funding for research between 2012 and 2013, compared with a rise of only 99p in the north west and north east.

This shows that the gap in investment is growing and the figure now stands at £8.75 per person in the north and £60.18 in the south east, London and east. This appears to be out of tune with the Chancellor’s vision announced in 2014 to “make the cities of the north a powerhouse for our economy again – with new transport and science and powerful city governance.”

Lead researcher, from the University’s in said: “Our work identified a large and growing disparity in funds spent on research in two different parts of the UK. We drew attention to the contrast between the south-east and the north of England because of the high profile that the latter region has had recently, for example with the plans for devolution in Greater Manchester.

“A complete analysis of research spending across different UK regions was not undertaken. Our main aim is to draw attention to the fact that the Office for National Statistics data at least allows such comparisons to be made. Study of the links between research, innovation, better jobs and improving population health will be assisted by this ONS data, and this will directly help our own research in the Centre for Epidemiology.”

, Director of the Centre for Epidemiology at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said: “The gap between funding is already large but these figures show it is also growing.  In the North, we already have some of the greatest inequalities in health outcomes. If the government wants to build the economy and reduce inequalities in the North then it needs work to bring parity to this situation and encourage innovation.”

The figures were calculated by taking the total funding in 2012 and 2013 and dividing this by the total population of the regions assessed.  Figures were adjusted for inflation.

Dr Verma said: “Targeted funding for innovation has been shown to drive strategic objectives. There’s currently a feedback loop in operation in England where more funding for the south drives ever greater increases. If the government really wants to push the idea of a Northern Powerhouse, addressing the large and growing disparity in funding will make a difference across all sectors.”

The letter: ‘, appeared in the Lancet.

Notes for editors

• Register to receive news releases
• Follow ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ Media Relations Team on
• For other social media, visit our online directory.

Media enquiries to:
Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk

Manchester’s Roma– who have so far suffered a lack of spokesmanship – are now being given a voice.

Academics from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ are leading a European Commission funded project in partnership with Manchester City Council to help the city’s Roma population to gain access to services, education and employment, and to combat the public’s negative perceptions of them.

The team worked alongside Manchester’s Roma to set up a community group aimed at providing advice and support and help them to take the lead on initiatives to give the community a public voice.

Project Coordinator Professor Yaron Matras said: “Unlike other immigrant and ethnic minority communities the Roma have so far lacked community representation. The main aim of our outreach work is to release Roma from being dependent on others and to encourage self-reliance.

“The presence of Roma migrants from Romania on the streets of major western European cities has triggered fierce public debates. We have worked to investigate the experiences, motivations, and ambitions of Roma migrants from Romania who have recently moved to Italy, France, Spain, and the UK, and the effect of migration on their own lives and on the lives of relations left behind in the home communities in Romania.”

The community group is being launched in partnership with Manchester City Council, the Big Life Group, and the University of Manchester’s Romani Project.

It will receive support from the European Roma and Travellers Forum, an organisation that represents the Roma at the Council of Europe.

MACC – Manchester’s local voluntary and community sector support organisation – and TS4SE Cooperative have also provided advice for the formation of the group.

Ramona Constantin, one of the group’s founders, said:

“We have many young people in our community who are talented and motivated. One of our goals is to help them identify opportunities to develop their skills. “

Afzal Khan MEP said:

“The Roma are Europe’s largest minority. They continue to suffer exclusion and discrimination. The community group is an excellent initiative. It will help make Manchester a model for the integration and participation of Roma in the European Union”.

Fay Selvan, Chief Executive of the Big Life Group, said:

“Our organisation has been supporting training and capacity building in the Roma community for several years now, and are looking forward to working together with Roma Voices of Manchester to continue this work.”

Dr Julian Skyrme, Director of Social Responsibility at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, said:

“The MigRom project is an excellent example of how our world-leading research is making a difference in our most local communities. Our expertise on languages and culture has been used to successfully engage local Roma communities, build their capacity and help to enhance cohesion and integration in specific parts of our city”

Notes for editors

Kath Paddison
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 0790
Mob: 07990 550050
Email: kath.paddison@manchester.ac.uk

Fifty years on from the first Race Relations Act, new research from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ and UCL finds that so-called ‘segregated’ Britain is both more diverse - and home to far wider inequalities – than originally thought.

A review of the last three population censuses suggests that ethnic inequalities in health, employment and housing remain prevalent in British communities and that discrimination continues to impede certain ethnic minority groups from realising their ambitions of good jobs and decent housing.

But it points to some of the biggest inequalities being found in more affluent areas and not necessarily the least deprived. The research also challenges the idea that Britain is becoming more segregated, presenting evidence that those areas often labelled as ‘segregated’ are, in fact, the most diverse.

The findings of Prof Ludi Simpson, Professor of Population Studies at the Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, and his co-editor Dr Stephen Jivraj, lecturer in Population Health at UCL and also part of CoDE, are published in a new book, Ethnic identity and inequalities in Britain (Policy Press, 2015), which challenges misconceptions around ethnically diverse Britain.

Prof Simpson said: “Our findings about the nature of inequality in British neighbourhoods and the perception of the way ethnic minorities live in supposed segregation are challenged in this new book. Despite improvements in health, employment and housing of ethnic minority groups in the last 20 years, clear disadvantage persists when compared with the average experience of the White British group and this is particularly marked in some of the less deprived areas.

“The research also points to restructures of the housing and labour markets that have failed to improve living standards for ethnic minority populations who, instead, have been disproportionately disadvantaged.”

One of the most significant findings is that rather than creating segregated communities, diversity is breeding diversity in Britain, with the ethnic group category ‘Other’ projected to soon become the biggest minority in many local authorities.

The inequalities in employment that many ethnic groups face are greater in less deprived places. This is particularly the case for Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups.

The CoDE publication also explains how difficulties persist for members of ethnic minority groups, even when they move on from the most deprived neighbourhoods that have traditionally housed new immigrants.

Dr Jivraj said: “Ethnic minorities who have managed to overcome barriers to secure housing in better-off neighbourhoods may well feel worse off than those that remain in the most deprived neighbourhoods. There is greater inequality in unemployment rates in the better-off neighbourhoods.

“Ethnic minorities are more likely to be unemployed or not working wherever they live, partly because of educational achievement, but also because of sectors of the economy where they have typically found work and the racial and religious discrimination they faced in all areas of life.”

The book concludes that policy now needs to go beyond the type of legislation that outlaws discriminatory practices to ensure that third and fourth generations of ethnic minorities do not continue to face social inequalities.

Notes for editors

Ethnic identity and inequalities in Britain: The dynamics of diversity is published by Policy Press on May 13, 2015, price £19.99 It can be ordered from the .

Read more about CoDE at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ .

To interview the co-editors or for a review copy, please contact:

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Professor Colin Talbot, Professor of Government at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½:  “With the election looking like it will result in a hung parliament, with a very small difference between the two main parties and no two-party deal that would command a majority of the those parties' members, we are entering unknown territory.

"The Fixed Term Parliaments Act further complicates matters as the old conventions about ‘who can command a majority of the House’ are now very doubtful in their operation. The FTP Act could enable a minority Labour government to keep itself in power for the full five years if it played its hand well. The minority SNP government in Scotland 2007-2011, rather ironically, shows how this could happen at Westminster.”

Joe Tomlinson, lecturer in constitutional law reform at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½: "A hung parliament would put us in a position where there are few clear constitutional answers on many of the big questions e.g. how long should David Cameron remain as Prime Minister if he has not commanded a majority?

“According to the Cabinet Manual, David Cameron should remain in No. 10 until the time when a new government is formed. Whether this is a mere expectation or whether he is obliged to stay in situ is not clear.

“The party with the most votes has no constitutional priority to govern or to try to form a government first. Nick Clegg takes the view that the party with the most votes ought to be given such priority but the issue actually hinges on which leader can, or looks most likely to be able to, command a majority.

“Coalitions have been rare in the UK and how they should form very much remains a developing area of constitutional law."

Notes for editors

To arrange an interview:

Joe Tomlinson: 07539 862039, joseph.tomlinson@manchester.ac.uk, @JoePTomlinson
Professor Colin Talbot: 07971 674620, colin.talbot@manchester.ac.uk, @ColinRTalbot

Prof Talbot has published a series of blogs on who governs Britain beyond May 7. They can be found .

For more from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ experts on General Election 2015, follow @UoMNews, @UoMPolicy and @BESResearch. Use #BESfactcheck for regular updates from the British Election Study through election night.

Further media enquiries and to arrange interviews with other members of our General Election Media Experts Group:

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
07789 948 783
deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Aeron Haworth
Senior Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
0161 275 8387,  07717 881563
aeron.haworth@manchester.ac.uk

The Co-Director of the British Election Study will join Political Editor Tom Bradby and News at Ten anchor Julie Etchingham as well as fellow psephologist Professor Colin Rallings, to follow the twists and turns of the closest and most unpredictable battle for Number 10 in a generation.

Expert analysis and reaction will be in high demand and the team will share their interpretation of the results as they happen.

They will be fronting ITV’s team of 120 reporters at counts across the UK, who’ll be supporting the network programme throughout the night, contributing to rolling news coverage online.

Based at ITV News’ Grays Inn Road studio Coverage begins at 9.55pm until 6am, when a special edition of Good Morning Britain with Susanna Reid will take over.

Professor Green will be turning to British Election Study data throughout the night, which has been monitoring British electoral behaviour since 1964, to give viewers an informed and impartial view of where the parties stand.

The British Election Study is run by the University of Manchester in collaboration with the Universities of Oxford and Nottingham.

She said: “Even at this late stage, absolutely no-one can say which way this exciting and unpredictable election will go, so viewers will quite rightly demand impartial and dependable analysis.

“There are so many unknowns: how well will the Lib Dem vote hold up? Who will be the largest party? How big will swing to the SNP eventually be in Scotland?

“We’re looking forward to finding out the answers to these and many other questions. Do join us.”

Alex Chandler, Programme Editor of ITV’s Election Programme, said: “First with the results, fast with analysis and focused on telling the story of the election as it happens, ITV’s overnight programme will guide viewers through the most complex and unpredictable race in a generation with comprehensive coverage of the battle for Number 10 and what lies ahead once the results are in.”

Notes for editors

Visit the University of Manchester's

For enquiries contact:
Mike Addelman
Communications and Marketing Manager
British Election Study
University of Manchester
0161 306 6901
07717 881567
Visit www.britishelectionstudy.com
Follow us on Twitter @BESResearch

In the Question Time broadcast, the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats answered questions from the public.

Watch the video here:

Notes for editors

Members of our are available to speak to journalists on political and policy issues around the General Election.

The MYPLACE report focuses on voting in elections and democratic performance and profiles data for the UK and covers the following areas: 

• Voting: the UK in the wider European context
• Why don’t young people vote? 
• Closeness to Political Parties 
• Trust in Political Institutions
• Cynicism: Attitudes towards politicians and politics 
• Participation: Traditional Forms 

Data from the MYPLACE project provides some insight into how young people in the UK may respond to this key period for democracy in their country and how this compares to other locations across Europe.

Data from the UK survey, conducted by Professor Gary Pollock and Mark Ellison from Manchester Metropolitan University, illustrate that whilst young people in the UK do not appear to exercise their right to vote as much as many of their European counterparts, paradoxically, young people still state that voting is the most important and effective form of participation.

With Polling Day just 6 days away Professor Pilkington, who is the project’s coordinator, says there is a clear disconnect between young people and politicians but that young people are not alienated from politics.

She said: “Interviews with young people conducted for the project confirm that despite low voting turnout, and a preference for non-conventional forms of politics, young people continue to attach higher ‘value’ to traditional forms of participation.”

“One explanation for declining participation is increasing cynicism about politics and politicians. Our research demonstrates that young people in the UK exhibit even lower levels of trust than youth in other established democratic countries. But scepticism about political institutions does not necessarily mean a withdrawal from participation; something that was shown clearly in the referendum on Scotland when more than two thirds of 16-24 year olds voted.”

“If young people are to exercise their voice in the UK elections on 7th May, they need to be inspired to transform their passive belief in the importance of democratic participation into an active engagement”, concluded Professor Pilkington.

Notes for editors

The MYPLACE Thematic Report Election Special is .

Professor Hilary Pilkington is available for interview.

Media enquiries to:

Kath Paddison
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 0790
Mob: 07990 550050
Email: kath.paddison@manchester.ac.uk

Or

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257
Mob: 07789 948 783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Professor Francesca Gains, Professor of Public Policy at ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, researches and teaches on gender and policy-making in the UK. 

Professor Gains said: “Women voters could be key in deciding who crosses the threshold of Number 10.

“Women make up 52% of the electorate and are more undecided than men in current polling. In past elections they have made their minds up closer to polling day. 

“There is also an added factor that, as they are coming to a judgement about who to vote for, women, who fared worse under austerity measures, may not be as optimistic about their personal outlook for the future and more concerned about the future of healthcare and education.

“The battle for women’s votes is apparent in the parties’ manifesto promises but undecided women voters should consider if these promises can make it through the complicated coalition negotiations that look likely to follow election day.”

Notes for editors

For background, Professor Gains’ latest blog can be found .

You can access Professor Gains’ bio .

Professor Gains has interview availability over the next week and around the General Election. To arrange an interview contact:

Deborah Linton

Media Relations Officer

Faculty of Humanities

ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½

Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948783

Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Search ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ election experts .

var cpo = []; cpo["_object"] ="cp_widget_8a81c412-f77a-4437-9569-100d717a85f1"; cpo["_fid"] = "A4MADdc8c_Nu";var _cpmp = _cpmp || []; _cpmp.push(cpo);(function() { var cp = document.createElement("script"); cp.type = "text/javascript";cp.async = true; cp.src = "//www.cincopa.com/media-platform/runtime/libasync.js";var c = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];c.parentNode.insertBefore(cp, c); })();

The collection of 132 cartoons, which includes a boat race, a chariot race, a horse race and a foot race, are political in nature, and many relate to general elections or to parliamentary by-elections held in Manchester or Salford in the 1870s.

The 1874 general election was the first to use a secret ballot. The Conservatives, under Benjamin Disraeli won the majority of seats, although the Liberals, under William Ewart Gladstone, actually won a majority of the votes cast.

The artists and/or printers are often unknown and these and other cartoons held can be viewed on the website of the British Cartoon Archive (see http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/).

The poster of The Boat Race for South East Lancashire illustrates the general election of 1874 showing the Conservative candidates for South East Lancashire, Algernon Egerton (9,187 votes) and Edward Hardcastle (9,015 votes), coasting to victory against the Liberal candidates Peter Rylands (7,464 votes) and J. E. Taylor (7,453 votes).

The poster for the general election of 1874 of a chariot race, released before the results were known, shows the Liberal candidates Thomas Bazley and Jacob Bright triumphing in a chariot race against the Conservative candidates Hugh Birley and William Romaine Callender In fact, although the contest was closely fought, the Conservative candidates were ultimately triumphant.

The printer J. Murray seems to be hedging his bets in a pair of cartoons showing a running race and a horse race drawn for the 1874 general election. The Conservative candidates for Manchester, Hugh Birley and William Romaine Callender, are seen to triumph in the horse race, while the Liberal candidates, Thomas Bazley and Jacob Bright, are shown as triumphant in the foot race. The numbers of votes cast (shown on the signposts) are fictitious. The actual results were:

• Conservative - Hugh Birley -19,984
• Conservative - William Romaine Callender -19,649
• Liberal - Thomas Bazley -19,325
• Liberal - Jacob Bright -18,727

The woman shown in these two cartoons is Lydia Becker, a key campaigner for women’s suffrage.

Media enquiries to:

Kath Paddison
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 0790
Mob: 07990 550050
Email: kath.paddison@manchester.ac.uk

She said: “When boats are left to drown because of a lack resources at sea, this is not mere negligence.

“In the forthcoming British election, anti-immigration themes feature among most major parties. British political engagement to the deaths in the Mediterranean is almost absent. This makes ‘us’ silent accomplices of what might one day be called the greatest crime in the post-second-world-war-world by future historians.

“The humanitarian catastrophe and mass murder of refugees at sea is ultimately a direct consequence of EU politics – even if actual deaths are also caused by smugglers who in the past have locked refugees in below deck or thrown them overboard.

“The European Charter for Human Rights promises protection to those who flee war and persecution. But this promise has become hollow.”

Read Dr Müller’s full Policy@Mcr blog .

Dr Tanja Müller .

Notes for editors

Media enquiries to:

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948 783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

“I was nervous coming here, I thought I had done something wrong… having to ask for food, your ego takes a battering.” – Father of two, using a food bank.

A new film by researchers at the University of Manchester documents the growing role of food banks in the UK and highlights the issue of food insecurity and how it can impact on the lives of vulnerable people.

Food insecurity - when people do not have the economic, social and physical resources to shop, cook and eat in order to ensure a sufficient supply of nutritionally appropriate food - is now more widespread than had previously been estimated.

ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ has responded to the problem by setting up a partnership with five local charities to focus on reducing food waste and food costs, and by supporting people to share their skills and to cook their own, cheaper meals.

The new film, funded by the School of Social Sciences at The University, provides a snapshot of the large numbers of people in the UK who find themselves constrained in their food choices and skipping meals, often to prioritise their families. It features interviews with food bank users, many of whom were reluctant to seek food aid.

Notes for editors

The research was led by K. Purdam, E. Garratt and A. Esmail. The food insecurity, nutritional deficiency and older people in the UK scoping study is being conducted by the Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research on Ageing (MICRA) with support from Manchester City Council, Food@Manchester and the HEIF Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Hub Project. Final research findings will be published in the summer of 2015.

For more information, see

Follow the project on .

Media enquiries to:

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948 783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Increasing their party's appeal to ethnic minority voters could help decide whether David Cameron or Ed Miliband emerges as Prime Minister, according to a new report featuring contributions by four University of Manchester academics.

The Race and Elections report, published by the Runnymede Trust, concludes that David Cameron faces a crucial battle to hold on to nine of the most ethnically diverse Conservative seats - according to constituency polls and election analysis. Whether he or Ed Miliband comes through in these seats could determine who governs Britain, giving the large ethnic minority populations in those seats an increasingly powerful voice in British democracy.

The report includes chapters by Dr Rob Ford, Professor Anthony Heath, Dr Maria Sobolewska and Stephen Ashe, of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ and covers ethnic minority voters, candidates, the far right, UKIP, religious mobilisation, registration and BME groups in Scotland. It reveals that the parties were only half as likely to contact ethnic minority as white British voters in 2010. They need to close that gap this month, or they may be losing votes that could make all the difference.

Dr Omar Khan, Director of the race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust, which produced the report, said: “In coming elections the younger BME population will be a rising share of voters from Edinburgh to Exeter, meaning that all MPs must learn how to respond to the ethnic minority concerns highlighted in this report. The major political parties are all worried about the threat of UKIP to their electoral vote share and have re-shaped their messages and policies, particularly around immigration, accordingly. But look at the key marginal seats and it becomes clear this no longer makes electoral sense as a strategy in the Britain of 2015 – and if parties don’t speed up their response to ethnic minority voters they could pay an ever heavier price in a changing Britain in 2020 and 2025.”

Together the contributions indicate the increasing importance of the BME vote, and how all the major political parties are struggling to respond to demographic change in 21st century Britain. There were 5 million more BME people reported in the 2011 Census as compared to 1991. The UK’s ethnic minority population now represents 8 million people: roughly the combined population of Scotland and Wales.

The report’s demographic analysis sets out why the ethnic minority vote will be an increasingly important part of the election battle – showing how Britain’s diversity is not only growing, it is spreading out across the country from the inner cities to a great many more marginal seats across the suburbs and market towns.

In 1992, when John Major delivered the last Conservative majority, there were only 7 seats with more than 40% BME population and the majority of seats had less than 2% BME population. Today there are around 50 seats with a 40% BME population and the majority of seats are more than 5% BME.

The Conservatives today hold four seats over this 40% threshold, and another five seats where BME residents are a third of the population. Whether or not the Conservatives can hold on to these nine seats including Harrow East, Hendon and Croydon Central, or whether Labour can hold on to its leads locally in the final weeks, will be crucial to deciding who governs.
 

Notes for editors

Media enquiries to:

Deborah Linton
Media Relations Officer
Faculty of Humanities
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 275 8257, 07789 948 783
Email: deborah.linton@manchester.ac.uk

Being active in a church or other religious group is a good way for ethnic minorities to develop friendships with white people, research has found – but this does not work for Muslims.

Yinxuan Huang, of ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½, was due to tell the British Sociological Association’s annual conference in Glasgow today that the religious activities of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and black Christians made it more likely that they had a close friend who was white.

An analysis of 29,016 survey responses from non-white people found that those who were active in their church, temple or synagogue were between 8% and 12% more likely to have a close white British friend than those who were not religious. The exception was active Muslims, whose religious activities did not bring them white friends. 

Mr Huang also found that second generation immigrants were up to 18% more likely to have a close white friend than others. However, this again did not apply to Muslims.

Giving the results of his PhD research to the conference, Mr Huang said that he found that active participation in religious activity, such as attending services, organising events or mentoring others, was necessary to have an effect – those who were spiritual without taking part were not more likely to have white friends.

Mr Huang found that only education made Muslims more likely to have a close white friend: those with degrees were 17% more likely, the largest rise among all the groups with degrees.

Mr Huang said: “For all non-white believers excepting Muslims, religious community participation is linked to greater connectedness with the white majority.”

He said that Muslims were “not succeeding in breaking through the barrier in bonding with the white majority. The inherent socioeconomic disadvantages and the emerging Islamophobia narrative in the public life tend to bind British Muslims closer to each other and to inhibit their contacts with the white majority.”

He was due to tell the conference that “religion may create boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ in a multicultural society. In Western Europe, this narrative has come into vogue in the politics of migration with the emergence of Islamophobia, the increasing visibility of far-right politicians who appear hostile to immigrants, and shocking events such as the murder of Lee Rigby and recent shootings in France.

“Much of the focus has been on the dark side of religion in integration, whereas how religious engagement could contribute positively to a multicultural society has received little attention.

“For many ethnic minorities, religious groups and organisations are among the very few institutions that are easily accessed and trusted. Co-religionists who share similar norms and values are keen to help each other regardless of different cultural backgrounds, and entering a place of worship does not require the same experiences, language skills, or even social status, as joining many other types of civic organisation.

 “Religious involvement also provides the foundation for wider civic and economic participation, because participation in formal services and church activities effectively generates opportunities for participants to establish contacts with other people both within and beyond their faith communities.”

Notes for editors

Tony Trueman
British Sociological Association
Tel: 07964 023392
tony.trueman@britsoc.org.uk

1. Mr Huang used responses to the 2007-2011 Citizenship Survey for his analysis.
In his analysis Hindus and Sikhs were considered together due to a small sample.
2. The British Sociological Association’s annual conference takes place at Glasgow Caledonian University from 15 to 17 April 2015. Around 800 research presentations are given.
3. The British Sociological Association’s charitable aim is to promote sociology. The BSA is a Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 3890729. Registered Charity Number 1080235
 

A specially constructed studio visiting eleven locations from Glasgow to Brighton will encourage young people in their local areas to come and hear more about the campaign, register as a Stand Up and record videos on issues that matter to them using the digital site.

The studio will also feature a photo booth where young people can upload their pictures to social media with the hashtag #SUBCTour, as well as an autocue allowing visitors to try their hand at being a presenter.

The studio will create a location for Sky News journalists to interview young people to bring their views to a large audience via all its platforms, as well as acting as a hub for Sky News’ General Election campaign coverage.

The tour aims to create a fun and unique experience that will engage 16-25 year olds with politics in the run up to election.

John Ryley, Head of Sky News said: “This tour is a really exciting opportunity for young people to engage with Stand Up Be Counted on a regional level. It will bring a unique experience right to the doorstep of people who might feel disengaged from the political parties and their campaign promises. We hope the tour will help more young people to have their voices heard ahead of the General Election, and we will put all our efforts behind amplifying their opinions. “

The studio will be situated next to University Place, Oxford Road, on Monday 13 April.

Notes for editors

For more information or to come and visit the studio, please contact:
Sky News
Isabel Moore
Isabel.moore@bskyb.com

or

Mike Addelman
Communications and Marketing Manager
Democracy and Elections
University of Manchester
07717 881567
 

The British Election Study has revealed the Conservatives' record on key policies could be seen as an electoral liability.

Though BES data shows the Tories are unlikely to lose voters during the campaign, their ability to build support could be limited by discontent with some areas of policy as we enter the election campaign.

BES Co-Director Professor Jane Green from ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½ finds less than 20 per cent of voters see an improvement in the Tory’s record on immigration, the NHS, crime, education and cost of living. And only just over 20 per cent of voters see themselves as personally better off.

According to the figures, only around 6% think the NHS is getting better and 3% think immigration is getting lower.

The British Election Study is managed by a team based at The Universities of Manchester, Oxford and Nottingham. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

A sample of around 16,000 respondents were interviewed between 6-13 March 2015.

Professor Green said: “What is well known is that the national economic recovery is an electoral asset for the Conservatives.

“However, what isn’t known is that the Tories have much work to do if they are to convince voters that a range of key policies are working.”

Using a range of survey and opinion polls, Professor Green and Professor Will Jennings from Southampton University also show voters hardly distinguish between the parties on their competence overall.

That could be more bad news for the Conservatives, who would benefit by convincing voters they are a more competent party in general than Labour.
 

Professor Jennings said: "Despite the claims of the Conservatives that they offer 'competence over chaos', they do not have a clear advantage on competence with the electorate."

BES data, adds Professor Green, shows most voters think cuts in public spending have gone too far. And only 25% consider it 'absolutely necessary' to cut the deficit.

Also according to the research, the rate of Conservative vote retention was 87% between Feb-March 2014 and March 2015.

This compares to a retention rate of 69% over the whole period from 2010 (using reported 2010 vote) to March 2015. Among the remaining Conservatives, any further losses look set to be equally split between rivals.

Notes for editors

The British Election Study is managed by a team based at The Universities of Manchester, Oxford and Nottingham. The Scientific Leadership Team is comprised of Professors Ed Fieldhouse, Jane Green, Hermann Schmitt, Geoff Evans and Cees van der Eijk.

More details and graphs are available on request.

For media enquires contact:

Mike Addelman
Communications and Marketing Manager
British Election Study
University of Manchester
0161 306 6901
07717 881567
Visit
Follow us on Twitter @BESResearch

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), was first introduced in 2004 and links up to 25% of a GP’s income to their performance in over 100 quality indicators. 

Many of these indicators cover the most common diseases including heart disease, diabetes and cancer and are in place to ensure that the proper preventative care is delivered to patients.

The researchers combined anonymous information from the Office of National Statistics and the Health and Social Care Information Centre and were able to cover almost the entire population of England including 99% of patients registered with a GP surgery.  They analysed data from 2007 to 2012.

The team, led by applied a complex data-analysis method that was able to focus-in on the available information and analyse the relationship between specific GP surgeries and the local populations they serve. 

They found that there was no corresponding drop in premature mortality for the surgeries that scored high on performance.  The researchers also found that where there was an increase in a GP’s performance against the Framework that there was no equivalent reduction in the rate of premature death.

Dr Kontopantelis is based at the University’s £18 million which is funded by an MRC-led consortium of universities across the North of England. He said: “While we accept that there may be longer term benefits of the scheme which we cannot yet measure it appears that the Quality and Outcomes Framework has failed to reduce mortality rates since 2007.  This suggests that it has fallen far short of previous estimates of success.

By far the greatest influence on premature mortality is poverty followed by geographical location: mortality rates in urban areas are higher than mortality rates in rural ones.  Both of these factors are known to have an effect on health, but the scale of their impact on premature mortality over time, particularly in the case of deprivation was greater than expected.

Dr Kontopantelis added: “If this incentive scheme and others like it around the world are to continue, more attention needs to be paid to ensure that the performance indicators are more closely aligned to evidence for mortality reduction.”

The study, ‘,’ appeared in the British Medical Journal.

Find out more about the work of the Health eResearch Centre in this video:

Notes for editors

Media enquiries to:

Jamie Brown
Media Relations Officer
ÌÇÐÄVlog¹Ù·½
Tel: 0161 2758383
Email: jamie.brown@manchester.ac.uk