Gatekeepers: How councils are controlling access to the public square

Regulation of the public square

Up until a decade or two ago, most towns or city centres would have had an area where residents could put up a street stall. There were no fees and the stall-holders didn’t have to ask for permission: so long as their stall wasn’t causing an obstruction or a nuisance, it would be allowed to remain. These street stalls included Marxists, animal rights groups, political parties, and religious groups; the stall might have a ban or flag to identify the cause, and the table would hold publications or leaflets, sometimes playing music or using amplification for sermons or talking to a crowd.

Street stalls would choose their spots according to foot traffic and the sort of people they were looking to meet, as well as to avoid conflict with marketplaces or local businesses. Certain groups might congregate in particular spots – perhaps the evangelicals on one part of the square and the leftists on the other. Each stall would stay a few hours, after which they would clear up and leave the spot for someone else.

The public square was in this sense a democratic space: anyone could pitch up and ply their cause to their fellow residents and citizens. Their success depended on the extent to which they were able to win people over: some stalls would be surrounded and crowded, others would be given a wide berth. The city square was a marketplace for public opinion – a tradition that goes back to eighteenth-century pampleteers, with the emergence of a reading public eager form opinions for themselves through persuasion and argument.

Over the past decade, the rules governing public activities in town and city centres have changed beyond all recognition, squeezing out these customary forms of public appeal. The square is no longer a space in which anyone can pitch up and promote their cause. Most town and city centres have become highly managed and regulated spaces, where the council takes ‘bookings’ for certain ‘event spaces’, sometimes charging a substantial fee and often subjecting the occupants of the space to a variety of conditions.

Councils will often give priority to their own ‘events’ or those of organisations they support, and may request copies of literature that will be handed out, to check that it is not ‘offensive’. Councils are in some cases assuming an almost total control over the political or religious causes that are allowed to appear in the public square, meaning that it is no longer a public or democratic space, but an officially stage-managed space. This degree of control is more reminiscent of totalitarian societies than democratic and free societies.

The legal basis for these controls varies. In a few cases, councils have brought through Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) banning unauthorised structures or leafleting without consent. One example of this is Leicester City Council, which banned all structures (including street stalls) as well as unauthorised banners and flags from public spaces.

Other councils invoke the 1980 Highways Act, with Brigend Council stating that ‘any stall on the highway would be considered an obstruction to the highway’. Yet the ordinary citing of street stalls – in the corner of a square or on a very wide pavement – is specifically designed not to obstruct the movement of people on the highway; and many other councils (eg Manchester) recognise that most stalls can be cited without falling foul of the Highways Act.

In other cases, councils impose restrictions on street stalls by virtue of being the ‘owner and manager’ of public spaces. A space owned by a public authority is treated as something like the private property of the officials staffing that authority, with rights to control the activities that occur within the space.

This report surveys the nature of council restrictions on street stalls, showing how this leads in some areas to a complete ban, in others to extensive control and stage-managing of the groups that are allowed to appear and the way they are allowed to present their case.

The report also celebrates a handful of councils who impose no restrictions: who say that political campaigning is a ‘free speech issue’, and that political activity is not something that should be ‘licensed’ or require ‘consent’ from the council. So long as someone is not breaking any laws or causing a public nuisance, they should be allowed to put up a temporary stall to appeal to their fellow citizens. These 19 councils are an example to the rest.

How many councils control access to the public square?

We issued a Freedom of Information Request to 321 district councils in England and Wales, asking about their policies on street stalls in public spaces. This found that:

148 councils said that people could put up a campaigning street stall;
30 said that it was ‘possibly’ or ‘potentially’ okay to put up a stall (eg that they dealt with stalls on a case by case basis, so people would have to apply);
62 councils said that it was not possible to put up a stall.

Of the 62 councils who banned political street stalls, many said there was an outright ban on political campaigning in the town or city centre. Neath Port Talbot Council said that it allowed ‘charity, community and council-supported events’, but not political parties, while Slough said that it didn’t allow events designed to promote a political party (although staff gathering for strike action would be ‘acceptable’). Sunderland Council said that political stalls are prohibited and that it only allowed charitable, ‘uncontentious’ non-profits, while Walsall Council also said it only allowed charities and community groups. Torfaen Council said that it didn’t allow political stalls on its land:

The Council’s general position is not to allow stalls of a political nature to be located on its land.

A portion of councils were unable to answer the question:

19 councils did not respond;
61 councils said that the information was not held, perhaps because activities on the highway were controlled by county or parish councils.

Of the 178 councils that allowed or possibly allowed street stalls:

159 councils said that there would be restrictions or regulations, such as applying in advance, gaining public liability insurance, or complying with other conditions. Of these 159 councils, 62 said that a fee would be payable (and an additional 3 said that a fee would possibly be payable);
19 councils said there were no fees or other restrictions.

The 19 councils who said that there were no restrictions on political street stalls held a quite different view of public space and the proper role of the public authority.

Councils that didn't restrict street stalls: Birmingham, Blackpool, Brighton & Hove, Bury, Charnwood, Coventry, East Suffolk, Enfield, High Peak, Hull, Lichfield, Maidstone, Malvern Hills, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Sheffield, Tandridge, Uttlesford, Wychavon, Monmouthshire.

Rather than assume a right to stage-manage activities on ‘their’ land, these 19 councils saw the right to a political street stall as a ‘free speech issue’ that it was not their business to regulate. For example, Uttlesford said that there is ‘nothing to prevent this act of free speech’. Brighton and Hove Council said that political street stalls were permitted without any requirement for a licence, so long as they were not causing an obstruction. Birmingham said:

Protests, vigils, and political campaigning on public land are not regulated by Birmingham City Council and do not need the permission of the Local Authority to take place.

Others said that political campaigning fell outside of their domain of regulation, which only included nuisances, street trading, obstructions, or permanent structures. So long as someone was not blocking paths or selling items, it did not fall within the bounds of council regulation. East Suffolk said:

As there is no requirement for a permit or street trading license we have no input on where they can or cannot setup a stall.

Manchester distinguished between ‘exclusive’ and ‘non-exclusive’ use of public space: if you wanted to use the whole of a square, you would have to rent it, but if you were happy to pitch up and go wherever (have ‘non-exclusive use’) then there were no formal procedures or restrictions.

This means that only 19 out of 240 councils able to answer the question said that there was no regulation of informal political campaigning. This is only 8% of all councils able to answer the question. Clearly, freedom of speech in public spaces is currently in a very small minority.

By contrast, 92% said that street stalls would be subject to regulation – either they would be banned entirely (26% or 62 councils), or they would be subject to certain requirements such as filling in applications and paying fees (66% or 159 councils).

Download the full data

In a handful of cases, the application requirements were light touch: for example, Crawley Council only required that the stallholders had public liability insurance and emailed the regeneration officer. But in many cases, the requirements for holding a street stall were incredibly arduous: time-consuming, expensive, and controlling or restrictive of the political opinions that were allowed to appear in the public sphere. It is to these councils that we now turn.

How is the public square controlled?

1. LICENSED EVENT SPACES

The primary development has been the creation of defined ‘event spaces’, which must be applied for and booked with the council. The previous customary divisions of public space – the areas where people would busk, preach, or campaign – have been superseded by bureaucratically created zones, each of which might have certain conditions, and within which activities must gain formal approval. For example, Kensington and Chelsea Council said they used to have ‘the old paste tables popping up everywhere’ – people would just pitch up and find a convenient spot – but now street stalls are restricted to two locations, each of which requires booking and a small fee. Kirklees Coucil said that a street stall would need to apply for a ‘street activity permit’ to use ‘town centre spaces’ (and that ‘use for political reasons’ would need additional clearance from Kirklees Council Licencing). Rotherham said that there are ’13 pitch areas within the town centre to let’ by political groups, but that these wouldn’t be available for protests.

A street stall is defined as an ‘activation’, ‘event’, or ‘promotion’, which can occur only with permission in one of the defined promotional or event spaces. Southend-on-Sea Council said that a political street stall would be ‘classed as an event’, while Horsham said that a street stall would ‘require a non-profit activity licence from the council’. Hackney Council said that there are a certain number of ‘designated licensed streets’, which can be used with ‘consent for a one-day licence’. The creation of a certain number of ‘licensed’ areas, within which ‘events’ can occur, goes along with the prohibition of ‘events’ from other areas.

Some councils produce brochures with maps or photos of the available event spaces, listing the activities that are allowed within them, and their rates and conditions of hire. These event spaces are supervised by a particular officer or department, who establishes the terms and conditions and processes applications. These officers are therefore given significant power to decide who and who may not be allowed to set up a street stall. Bristol Council said that ‘Bristol City Council have the authority to assess the merits of each application individually, and the decision is final’. The council decision does not go to vote, however, but rather is a decision made by a single or small number of non-elected officers.

This creation of ‘licensed event spaces’ in streets and squares that were formerly open for public use is in some cases associated with a privatisation or semi-privatisation of public spaces. Liverpool told us that campaigners would need approval from the Liverpool Business Improvement District (BID) if they wanted to hold a stall in the city centre, while in the privately owned areas of Liverpool One or Albert Dock they must contact the landowners. But even where land remains public, some councils treat streets and squares as if they were private rights holders of these spaces, with the right to set the conditions for their use and hire.

In the case of Woking, the council has actually set up its own private company to run the town centre. Most of Woking town centre is owned by a private company – and this company manages ‘bookings’ for the town centre – but the council has a 100% stake in the company, after it bought out other shareholders in 2023. A public body used ratepayers’ money to set up a private company responsible for managing the town centre. In relation to the public, the council takes the form of a private body – and a public space takes the form of the authority’s private property.

These changes appear to have occurred in the past decade. For example, the Woking Council’s ‘public realm usage policy‘ was first approved in 2015, and was signed by the council and the company then called Woking Shopping. The policy began:

As owners and managers of the public spaces indicated within the boundary shown on the town centre map…it is important to Woking Borough Council that any activities taking place in these spaces enhance the image of Woking town centre as a quality destination in which to spend time, and do not compromise anyone’s safety or well-being.

The 2015 policy document divided the town centre up into certain areas, and specified the activities that were allowed to take place in each. Each ‘space’ had a cross or tick next to leafleting, charity fundraising, and so on, and each activity had certain terms and conditions (the hours when it may occur and the rules that must be followed). Shortly after the policy came in, members of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign were told that they had to get council permission and public liability insurance before handing out leaflets.

Notably, in an updated version of this policy, the council reserves the two primary public spaces – Jubilee and Victoria square – for its exclusive use:

The use of Jubilee Square and/or Victoria Square will be restricted to events and promotions managed by the Council or partners authorised by it, unless special permission has been granted by the Council (such as for charity fundraising, or cultural events/ entertainment).

Similarly, the Blaenau Gwent ‘commercial bookings policy’ is dated 2017 and specifies the conditions for street stalls in the town centres; the policy says it represents a replacement of an ‘informal booking policy’ with a ‘formal policy’. This ‘formal policy’, however, means the complete exclusion of all political and religious campaigning from public spaces:

Certain exemptions relating to the type of promotions permitted within the town centre apply, in order to protect the interest of Blaenau Gwent residents and visitors e.g. pay day loan lenders, political groups and religious groups.

Here, the council assumes a paternalistic right to decide what is in the ‘interest’ of residents and visitors, and strangely concludes that they need to be protected from all ‘political and religious groups’.

Other councils have created ‘community spaces’ for the use of charity or community groups, which are free and indeed sometimes include the use of materials and a permission to sell items. However, these spaces often come with stringent conditions governing how they can be used, including in many cases the exclusion of political groups.

These policies show how councils, over the past 10-15 years and in many cases as part of regeneration programmes, have assumed a more proprietorial control over town and city centres. In some cases this involved setting up independent or semi-independent private bodies to manage public spaces. In other cases, councils merely considered it their right to divide up squares and streets into ‘activity spaces’, which henceforth can only be used with council permission and according to stringent conditions, and any ‘activity’ outside of these spaces is prohibited.

2. APPLICATIONS, RED TAPE AND FEES

In a few councils, the application process was relatively light, requiring only an email to the regeneration officer to check that there were no clashes with commercial bookings. But in many cases the application process was taxing: an application to Harborough Council to put up a street stall in the main square required a 12-page application form, 12 weeks in advance. Most councils required application at least 4-6 weeks in advance.

The very act of having to apply for permission transforms the nature of what should be a free public act of petitioning for the support of your fellow citizens. Council application forms state ‘If permission is granted’: holding a street stall is not a right but something that occurs at the discretion of the public authority. They will only give permission if you have complied with their conditions (and sometimes not even then, retaining an ultimate right to refuse applications without appeal).

Application forms required information including: the identities of those who would be taking part; the hour of set-up and departure; a sketch or photo of the stall. Some councils (such as Hounslow and Stoke-on-Trent) asked to see copies of any leaflets or literature that would be handed out. This information is not something that would necessarily be known by people planning an informal street stall in a month’s time.

In addition, these requests are very intrusive: it means that the council has the identities of everyone leading political or religious activities in the borough. These are significant invasions into privacy and people’s rights to anonymity. The request for prior vetting of leaflets (Stoke-on-Trent wants to see literature ‘to ensure that it isn’t offensive’) means that the council is assuming the right to vet the material that one citizen is able to give to another.

Many councils also require that street stall holders have £10-20 million public liability insurance (which costs around £20-30), a risk assessment, or a ‘site plan’. Bristol Council still requires Covid-19 mitigation as part of the risk assessment for street stalls. Watford Council requires that anyone using a megaphone/loud speakers has a risk assessment that includes checking noise levels every half hour, ‘to ensure that no disturbance is being caused’. Luton Council requires that anyone playing amplified music for more than an hour employ ‘a qualified Noise Consultant at your cost, in addition to a Noise Control
Person’ (for background music, a noise control person would suffice).

In many cases, council application forms appear to have been designed for much larger events – such as concerts or fairs – and a street stall must fill in a form that has sections about toilets and fire escapes.

Notably, there were 62 councils who required a fee as part of the application. In many cases, this was £10-30, a nominal amount to cover the costs of processing the application. Here, the council has set up a system for authorising public activities, and then requires that the public maintain this infrastructure at its expense.

Nottingham City Council charged a £51 ‘highways licence’, even though this was for a street stall on a wide pedestrianised street.

Several councils charged £50-100, an amount that would be prohibitive for an informal campaigning stall staffed by volunteers. If a group wanted to have a presence in a town – and campaign every Saturday, for example – this would mean £400 pounds a month. Costs given by councils include £85 in Middlesbrough, £75 in Bath, and £100 in Rotherham.

A small number of councils said that they would charge extremely high rates, between £100-500 a day. Here, the use of the high street or market square is being approached as a commercial venture, and a source of additional income for the public authority. These fees would be completely out of reach for local groups, including larger groups such as political parties. In this category, Waltham Forest and Tewkesbury councils both requested £150, while Bracknell Forest said it would be £200, and Plymouth charged £200-400. Bristol Council charged £375 a day, while Luton charged the highest rate at £415-515 for one day. These fees mean that public spaces can only be used by large commercial entities.

3. CONTROLLING POLITICAL EXPRESSION

The gatekeepers of the public square do not only obstruct through red tape and fees: they also perform an ideological vetting function, policing the political or religious opinions that are allowed to be expressed. This takes councils way beyond the remit of enforcing the law on political and religious expression. Instead, some councils are controlling access to the public realm, only allowing the groups or opinions with which they agree to be expressed, and restricting those they think unsuitable.

For example, Arun Council’s booking policy lists several ‘non-permissible activities and events’ to which ‘We reserve the right to withhold granting permission’. This includes not only anyone involved in the arms trade, sex industry, or alcohol/tobacco industries, but also ‘extreme political parties or organisations’, and more worryingly:

any event on our land, requiring our approval, where the aims conflict with or seek to undermine decisions/policy democratically taken by us

any activity that might cause disharmony on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or any activity or negative attitudes which compromise our commitment to equal opportunities

any other activity deemed to be inappropriate by the events officer in consultation with the appropriate committee

any organisations…which involve the use of, or cause harm to any animal, or are detrimental to the safety and welfare of any animal

It is shocking that a democratically elected council is restricting street stalls on the basis of ‘negative attitudes’ or because an organisation’s views conflict with its own. This would prohibit anyone campaigning against council policy, or preaching the Christian doctrine in a Muslim area (or vice versa), or presumably to support animal experimentation or even to mention local meat products (both of which involve the ‘use of…any animal’). The policy also gives the events officer carte blanche to restrict an event not on any of the 11 listed grounds, but just because they consider it ‘inappropriate’.

Meanwhile, Watford Council states that ‘If the Council agrees to grant permission for your event, there may be several conditions that you must comply’, including:

No activities to cause offence to any person.

The directions of the Council’s authorised Officers or any Police Constable to be complied with.

Several other councils (including Hereford) also included this latter restriction, meaning that even once someone has jumped through all the hoops – applied a month in advance for their event, paid a fee and handed over their personal details – they could still be asked to move on, or somehow modify their activity, on the whim of a particular council officer.

Bath Council’s ‘charity pitch’ comes with severe restrictions on the groups and activities allowed, stating that ‘The charity pitch must not be used to carry out any of the following activities’:

Activity that might breach the Equalities Act 2010 or compromise the Council’s
commitment to equal opportunities.

Any other use which the council deems to be inappropriate.

This second condition gives the council wide-ranging veto power over who may use the pitch. The agreement also states that you must not carry out activities that the council considers ‘may become’ a ‘nuisance’ or ‘annoyance’ – a similarly broad ground for restrictions – and gives the council the right to cancel the booking, as well as specifying that you must obey the instructions of council officers as to how you conduct your street stall:

You shall observe and comply with any directions in relation to the use of the street given by any duly authorised officer of the Council.

Finally, the Bath Council pitch also bans people from vaping or smoking, stating that ‘No smoking or vaping is permitted by anyone representing your organisation during the booking period’. Bristol Council also imposed this condition, with the events officer telling us that stallholders would be expected not to smoke or vape when interacting with members of the public.

Stoke-on-Trent Council asked to see copies of leaflets beforehand to ensure that they ‘are not offensive’. Its booking policy states that leaflets ‘cannot be offensive, slanderous or have a negative agenda’ – a restriction that would exclude most genuinely political leaflets, for example any strong criticism of a war or of economic policy. (The policy also states that buskers ‘cannot sing offensive songs’). If leaflets are deemed offensive, ‘this could be reported to the city centre BID Ambassadors or police as appropriate to get them moved on’.

Woking Council’s ‘public realm usage policy‘ states:

Woking Borough Council encourages the use of the public realm by groups which support the diversity of the Borough but retains the right to refuse permission to organisations whose views or activities would lead to potential public order issues or widespread offence.

It is not specified what is meant by groups that ‘support the diversity of the Borough’, but it seems to indicate a certain spectrum of liberal opinion, which would not include groups such as Reform or indeed many Christian groups; if groups are thought to cause ‘offence’ the council would invoke its ‘right to refuse permission’.

Some councils have established ‘speaker’s corners’, which has a laudable intention, but due to the combination of a prohibition on amplification and leaflets, and the mild nature of permitted political views, these are spaces for the neutralisation of political expression rather than its realisation. For example, Derby said that those using Speaker’s Corner should ‘respect all opinions’ and ‘seek common ground and not confrontation’ – a condition that would make any political speech (outlining a particular opinion and criticising other particular policies or opinions) impossible.

Organisations with council support often gain access to a privileged use of the public square, and can promote their cause in a way that other organisations cannot. For example, Oldham Council’s ‘community space’ provides a free table and gazebos, and can be used for sales/donations (without requiring a licence), but this space is only for council-approved groups, and does not allow ‘political canvassing’.

As mentioned above, Woking Council reserved the use of the two main public squares for council-supported groups and events only. It also exempted council and council-supported events from generally held restrictions on leafleting and canvassing, which include restricting leafleting and market research to 12 bookings a year between Monday and Thursday (and therefore not in the time of highest footfall on a Saturday), and banning them from the two main squares:

Council-supported services and events can be promoted via leafleting more
widely within the public realm.

The Council reserves the right to carry out market research on Council supported
services and events more widely within the public realm

Applying to hold an event in Ipswich Council’s Cornhill Square is like putting in a funding application, with a section on the form asking ‘how does the event support the Vision and Values for the Cornhill?’ A street stall holder would have to say how their campaign to was

imaginative – creative, forward thinking, challenging convention
welcoming – engaging with all of our community, a place to share
exemplar – showcasing our town to the best of our abilities
commercial – opportunities to invest in future enlivenment activities

Here, the primary meeting place for a town – which has been the site of gatherings and public events for centuries – has been stamped with a series of council-invented ‘visions and values’, which the public must show how they are promoting in order to gain access to the space. This is ideological control of the greatest vacuity.

Public Spaces Protection Orders

Most of the restrictions discussed above are based on ‘policy’ rather than criminal law, invoking the rights of the council as landowner or as Highways Agency in order to regulate the space. However, several councils have used a novel legal mechanism – the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) – to criminalise various aspects of political campaigning or street stalls.

For example, Leicester has prohibited ‘unauthorised structures’, including tables, stalls, flags and banners, which prevents the habitual practices of political and religious groups in the area. Dozens of religious groups received formal warnings, and a pensioner was fined £100 for putting up a street stall without permission, in her case to campaign against council cuts. Leicester’s PSPO also banned unauthorised amplification and unauthorised charity collection.

This law means that the only people who have access to the public square – to promote their cause, or talk to a crowd, or raise money – will be those that the council has approved.

Hillingdon Council’s 2023 PSPO prohibited all unauthorised ‘tables, stands, signage’, as well as amplification – restrictions that led to religious groups being threatened with fines by police – but these prohibitions have been removed from the most recent version of the PSPO this year.

Redbridge has a PSPO that requires that all organised events be subject to prior approval by the Redbridge Safety Advisory Group, thereby making it a criminal offence not to seek permission before holding an event in the borough.

Several councils (including Birmingham, Greenwich and Hammersmith and Fulham) have banned amplification without permission, which would affect political or religious stalls seeking to communicate with a crowd or to play music. These orders mean that somebody holding a street stall would not just be asked to move on: they could be fined or prosecuted.

Conclusions

The vast majority of councils prevent or strictly regulate street stalls and political campaigning in their area. In some cases, this includes fees of up to £400 a day, in others outright bans on political campaigning, or controlling the political causes that are permitted to appear.
This means that the public square is no longer in most cases a free or democratic space, available for citizens or political parties to appeal to local residents. Instead, it is a stage-managed space, which is hired out or subject to prior approval from council officers. Councils have banned opinions that they think are ‘inappropriate’, or have a ‘negative agenda’ or cause ‘offence’, and they create special dispensation or access to campaigning for their own promotions or those of groups they support.
Councils generally impose these restrictions under the Highways Act, or as owner of public spaces. It is questionable whether a well-placed street stall could legitimately be called an ‘obstruction’ under the Highways Act. It is also questionable whether, just because a council owns public land, it has the right to impose restrictions of its choice upon use of that land.
Regardless of the legal basis, these restrictions represent a betrayal of traditional public rights to use urban spaces for the purpose of petitioning their fellow citizens. They undermine local democracy, and replace a ‘first come’ right of public appeal with a stage-managed and choreographed process. This means that the campaign groups you will see, and those you will hear, will be those favoured by the council, or with enough money to pay the requisite fees and fill in the forms.
19 councils allow free speech in public spaces, saying that temporary street stalls do not require a licence or approval, and are a ‘free speech issue’. These councils – which include large metropolitan areas such as Manchester – are an example to others, and show that allowing free public expression is entirely possible and compatible with flourishing city centres.

Recommendations

Councils may want to rent out parts of their town and city centres, but they should also ensure that some areas are available for free public use, on an informal basis. This will mean that local groups can appeal to fellow residents, without having to pay expensive fees or submit their leaflets for prior approval to the council.
The council should not decide who is fit and able to appear in the public square. So long as someone is not committing a criminal offence, an obstruction, or a significant public nuisance, this should not be a matter for council licensing or the payment of fees.
If councils do request prior notice from groups wishing to hold a stall, this should be kept as light touch as possible – for example sending an email to a town centre booking manager, to check that there are no conflicts.
Councils should not use PSPOs to ban political activity, such as bans on flags and table stalls. The primary PSPO legislation states that any PSPO ‘must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention’. It is difficult to see how bans on flags and tables – which make political campaigning difficult or impossible – can be considered respectful of rights to free expression.
The government should explore the possibility of creating guidance for local authorities on the subject of political street stalls (which does not currently exist), to encourage councils to take a more liberal approach. This guidance could pay particular attention to campaigning by political parties, which is clearly in the interests of democratic life. If political parties are prevented from having a local presence – or certain parties are restricted – then this directly undermines democracy.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the following Trusts for the support of this report: Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Politics Economics and Research Trust, Andrew Wainwright Foundation.