Brexit and the NHS: voting behaviour and views on the impact of leaving the EU.

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Stephen Drinkwater, Catherine Robinson
{"title":"Brexit and the NHS: voting behaviour and views on the impact of leaving the EU.","authors":"Stephen Drinkwater, Catherine Robinson","doi":"10.1057/s41293-022-00216-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper examines three aspects of Brexit with regards to the NHS. First, we consider the influence of views regarding one of the most contentious issues in the referendum campaign: <i>Vote Leave</i>'s claim that the 'savings' from EU membership could alternatively be used to provide additional funding for the NHS. We find that views about NHS underfunding had a relatively small, but statistically significant, effect on leave voting even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic and economic variables. However, the magnitude of this effect is reduced and becomes insignificant when health-related and cultural controls are added. Second, we examine how NHS workers voted relative to others in employment, and find that a relatively high proportion was actually leave voters. Finally, we analyse whether individuals thought that Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the NHS, as well as the reason or reasons for their view. We find that supporters of the Conservative party were by far the most likely to think that Brexit would be good for the NHS.</p>","PeriodicalId":46067,"journal":{"name":"British Politics","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9383685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-022-00216-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines three aspects of Brexit with regards to the NHS. First, we consider the influence of views regarding one of the most contentious issues in the referendum campaign: Vote Leave's claim that the 'savings' from EU membership could alternatively be used to provide additional funding for the NHS. We find that views about NHS underfunding had a relatively small, but statistically significant, effect on leave voting even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic and economic variables. However, the magnitude of this effect is reduced and becomes insignificant when health-related and cultural controls are added. Second, we examine how NHS workers voted relative to others in employment, and find that a relatively high proportion was actually leave voters. Finally, we analyse whether individuals thought that Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the NHS, as well as the reason or reasons for their view. We find that supporters of the Conservative party were by far the most likely to think that Brexit would be good for the NHS.

英国脱欧和英国国家医疗服务体系:投票行为和对脱欧影响的看法
本文考察了英国脱欧与NHS的三个方面。首先,我们考虑有关公投活动中最具争议的问题之一的观点的影响:“脱欧派”声称,欧盟成员国的“储蓄”可以用来为NHS提供额外的资金。我们发现,即使在控制了一系列社会人口和经济变量之后,关于NHS资金不足的观点对脱欧投票的影响相对较小,但在统计上显着。然而,当加入与健康和文化相关的控制因素时,这种影响的程度就会降低,变得微不足道。其次,我们研究了NHS工作人员相对于其他就业人员的投票情况,发现实际上有相当高的比例是离开选民。最后,我们分析了个人是否认为英国脱欧会对NHS产生积极或消极的影响,以及他们观点的原因或原因。我们发现,到目前为止,保守党的支持者最有可能认为英国脱欧对NHS有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Politics
British Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: British Politics offers the only forum explicitly designed to promote research in British political studies, and seeks to provide a counterweight to the growing fragmentation of this field during recent years. To this end, the journal aims to promote a more holistic understanding of British politics by encouraging a closer integration between theoretical and empirical research, between historical and contemporary analyses, and by fostering a conception of British politics as a broad and multi-disciplinary field of study. This incorporates a range of sub-fields, including psephology, policy analysis, regional studies, comparative politics, institutional analysis, political theory, political economy, historical analysis, cultural studies and social policy. While recognising the validity and the importance of research into specific aspects of British politics, the journal takes it to be a guiding principle that such research is more useful, and indeed meaningful, if it is related to the field of British politics in a broader and fuller sense. The scope of the journal will therefore be broad, incorporating a range of research papers and review articles from all theoretical perspectives, and on all aspects of British politics, including policy developments, institutional change and political behaviour. Priority will, however, be given to contributions which link contemporary developments in British politics to theoretical and/or historical analyses. The aim is as much to encourage the development of empirical research that is theoretically rigorous and informed, as it is to encourage the empirical application of theoretical work (or at least to encourage theorists to explicitly signify how their work could be applied in an empirical manner).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信