The New Deal for Communities (NDC) initiative forms an integral part of the British government's policy towards urban regeneration. An important provision within this policy programme allows for community representatives to be elected rather than selected to partnership boards. These elections were not contested by candidates representing political parties. This policy development may be used as a future template for a range of single-purpose elected authorities, including foundation hospitals, social services, leisure, and policing. The paper examines partnership board elections in terms of the candidates' experience and also the participation of voters. A feature of these elections has been the introduction of innovations in electoral procedure and practice as a means of engaging local communities and facilitating voter participation. Interviews with candidates sought to identify their motives for standing and their feelings about the electoral process itself. An analysis of voter turnout considers how these elections compare with local government council elections covering the same areas. The findings show a mixed picture. Some elections to NDC partnerships did result in a higher turnout than that for local government council elections. However, a majority of partnership elections had turnouts that were below the predicted level. It was noticeable that partnerships within the Greater London area generally had lower than expected turnout. A number of issues are identified that are relevant to the future conduct of these and similar nonpartisan elections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanducciSThrasherMRallingsCKarpJ, 2003, “Candidate appearance cues in low-information elections”, paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August; copy available from the authors.
2.
BlearsH, 2003Communities in Control: Public Services and Local Socialism (Fabian Society, London).
3.
BoyneG AWalkerR M, 1999, “Social housing reforms in England and Wales: A public choice evaluation”Urban Studies362237–2262.
4.
ClarkeMStewartJ D, 1999Community Governance, Community and the New Local Government (York Publishing Services, York).
5.
CorryDStokerG, 2002, “New localism: Refashioning the centre-local relationship”, New Local Government Network, 42 Southwark Street, London SE1 1UN.
6.
CorryDHatterWParkerIRandleAStokerG, 2004, “Joining-up local democracy: Governance systems for new localism”, New Local Government Network, 42 Southwark Street, London SE1 1UN.
7.
DahlR ATufteE R, 1973Size and Democracy (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).
8.
Department of Health, 2002A Guide to NHS Foundation TrustsDepartment of Health Publications, PO Box 777, London SE1 6XH.
9.
DETR, 1997Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: A Guide for Practitioners2nd edition, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
10.
DibbenPBartlettD, 2001, “Local government and service users: Empowerment through user-led innovation?”Local Government Studies27(3) 43–58.
11.
Electoral Commission, 2002, “Modernising elections: A strategic evaluation of the 2002 electoral pilot schemes”, The Electoral Commission, Trevelyan House, Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2HW.
12.
FarrellD M, 1997Comparing Electoral Systems (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts).
13.
FarrellD MMackerrasMMcAllisterI, 1996, “Designing electoral institutions: STV systems and their consequences”Political Studies4424–43.
14.
FilkinGStokerGWilkinsonG, 2000, “Towards a new localism”, New Local Government Network, 42 Southwark Street, London SE1 1UN.
15.
FitzpatrickSHastingsAKintreaK, 2000, “Youth involvement in urban regeneration: Hard lessons, future directions”Policy and Politics28493–509.
16.
FoleyPMartinS, 2000, “A new deal for the community? Public participation in regeneration and local service delivery”Policy and Politics28479–492.
17.
FrandsenA G, 2002, “Size and electoral participation in local elections”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20853–869.
18.
FranklinM, 1996, “Electoral participation”, inComparing Democracies, Elections and Voting in Global Perspective Eds LeducLNiemiR GNorrisP, (Sage, London) pp 216–235.
19.
GeddesM, 2000, “Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24782–800.
20.
GripaiosP, 2002, “The failure of regeneration policy in Britain”Regional Studies36568–577.
21.
HallSNevinB, 1999, “Continuity and change: A review of English regeneration policy in the 1990s”Regional Studies33477–491.
JewsonNMacGregorS, (Eds), 1997Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial Divisions (Routledge, London).
24.
KarpJ ABanducciS A, 2000, “Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout”Political Behavior22223–239.
25.
KelleyJMcAllisterI, 1984, “Ballot paper cues and the vote in Australia and Britain—alphabetic voting, sex, and title”Public Opinion Quarterly48452–466.
26.
KingDStokerG, (Eds), 1996Rethinking Local Democracy (Macmillan, London).
27.
KleinDBaumL, 2001, “Ballot information and voting decisions injudicial elections”Political Research Quarterly54709–728.
28.
LadnerA, 2002, “Size and direct democracy at the local level: The case of Switzerland”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20813–828.
29.
LakemanE, 1982Power to Elect (Heinemann, London).
30.
LijphartAPintorR L, 1988, “Alphabetic bias in partisan elections—patterns of voting for the Spanish Senate, 1982 and 1986”Electoral Studies7225–232.
31.
LowndesVSkelcherC, 1998, “The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance”Public Administration76313–333.
32.
LowndesVNantonPMcCabeASkelcherC, 1997, “Networks, partnership and urban regeneration”Local Economy11333–342.
33.
MaglebyD B, 1987, “Participation in mail ballot elections”Western Political Quarterly4079–91.
34.
MondakJ J, 1993, “Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues”Political Behavior15167–192.
35.
ODPM, 2000Our Towns and Cities: The Future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Stationery Office, London).
PikeA, 2003, “The disintegration of local government: Dangers of single-service elected bodies”, Association of London Government, 591$2 Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL.
38.
RahnW M, 1993, “The role of partisan stereotypes in information-processing about political candidates”American Journal of Political Science37472–496.
39.
RallingsCThrasherM, 1990, “Turnout in English local elections—an aggregate analysis with electoral and contextual data”Electoral Studies979–90.
40.
RallingsCThrasherM, 1994Explaining Election Turnout: A Secondary Analysis of Local Election Statistics (HMSO, London).
41.
RallingsCThrasherM, 1997Local Elections in Britain (Routledge, London).
42.
RallingsCThrasherM, 2000, “Elections—the 21st century model”, LGA Research 14, Local Government Association, Local Government House, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ.
43.
RallingsCThrasherM, (Eds), 2003Local Elections in Britain: A Statistical Digest2nd edition, LGC Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
44.
RallingsCThrasherMGunterC, 1998, “Patterns of voting choice in multimember districts: The case of English local elections”Electoral Studies17111–128.
45.
RallingsCThrasherMDowneJRidgeM, 2000Turnout in Local Elections: The Impact of Voting and Electoral Procedures (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
46.
ReifKSchmittH, 1980, “Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European elections”Electoral Studies83–44.
47.
SchaffnerB FStrebM J, 2002, “The partisan heuristic in low-information elections”Public Opinion Quarterly66559–581.
48.
SchaffnerB FStrebMWrightG, 2001, “Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections”Political Research Quarterly547–30.
49.
ShawKDavidsonG, 2002, “Community elections for regeneration partnerships: A new deal for local democracy?”Local Government Studies281–16.
50.
ShawKRobinsonF, 1998, “Learning from experience? Reflections on two decades of British urban policy”Town Planning Review6949–63.
51.
SkelcherCMcCabeALowndesV, 1996Community Networks in Urban Regeneration (Policy Press, Bristol).
52.
SmithGWalesC, 1999, “The theory and practice of citizens' juries”Policy and Politics27295–308.
53.
SmithGWalesC, 2000, “Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy”Political Studies4851–65.
54.
SmithMBeazleyM, 2000, “Progressive regimes, partnerships and the involvement of local communities: A framework for evaluation”Public Administration87855–879.
55.
SouthwellP LBurchettJ I, 2000, “The effect of all-mail elections on voter turnout”American Politics Quarterly2872–79.
56.
SquirePSmithE R A N, 1988, “The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections”Journal of Politics50169–179.
57.
StewartM, 1994, “Whitehall and townhall: The realignment of urban regeneration policy in England”Policy and Politics22133–145.
58.
StokerG, (Ed.), 2000The New Politics of British Local Governance (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants).
59.
SykesRHedgesA, (Eds), 1998Panels, Juries—New Government, New AgendaSocial Research Association, PO Box 33660, London N16 6WE.
60.
ThrasherM, 1981, “The concept of a central-local government partnership: Issues obscured by ideas”Policy and Politics9445–470.
61.
TiesdellSAllmendingerP, 2001, “Neighbourhood regeneration and New Labour's third way”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19903–926.
62.
TunstallR, 2001, “Devolution and user participation in public services: How they work and what they do”Urban Studies382495–2514.
