Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Recent findings reveal that regions benefiting from the previous government’s criticized levelling up fund generally showed lower support for Reform UK in the general election. This suggests that initiatives producing immediate outcomes might deter populist support, according to a study conducted by the Social Market Foundation (SMF).
Billed as the first of its kind to analyze extensive data linked to individual constituencies and their backing for Reform, the SMF identified various factors that influenced voter preferences for Nigel Farage’s party.
Some insights mirrored trends observed in global studies on populism, particularly noting a significant relationship between lower educational attainment among local voters and increased support for Reform UK.
The party also found favor in regions with a dominant white demographic, particularly in areas where that proportion was decreasing due to new arrivals. Additionally, higher crime rates were closely tied to increased support for Reform, highlighting complex community dynamics.
Interestingly, the study revealed that an older population did not correlate with greater support for Reform. Furthermore, data models indicated that constituencies receiving levelling up funds were likely to exhibit smaller shares of the Reform vote than might be expected based on their demographics.
Jamie Gollings, SMF’s research director, pointed out the importance of distinguishing correlation from causation. He noted the possibility that funding may have been directed more toward areas predisposed to mainstream party support, rather than those leaning towards Reform.
These findings could offer valuable lessons to the Labour government led by Keir Starmer, according to Gollings. He suggested that while large infrastructure projects and planning reforms may bear fruit nominally over decades, immediate strategies might include ensuring local job allocation in construction or enhancing local community environments, such as improving high streets or repairing roads.
Another key aspect of the study highlighted the impact of local political cultures on Reform’s performance. The party seemed to struggle in urban centers like Liverpool and the south-west of England, where the Liberal Democrats historically have a strong presence.
The relationship between economic conditions and support for populism was also explored, revealing a more intricate dynamic than typically suggested. For instance, the SMF noted Clacton, Essex, a constituency won by Farage, which despite rapid growth in green economy jobs, may not directly benefit many local residents.
Gollings observed that while Labour emphasizes growth, the perception of economic progress by constituents may differ significantly from the statistical data perceived by decision-makers in Whitehall. He emphasized that economic indicators may not reliably reflect the on-the-ground realities experienced by individuals.
When focusing on particular constituencies, distinct factors emerged. Seats won by Reform typically yielded better results than demographics suggested, primarily due to the presence of well-known candidates like Farage and former Conservative MP Lee Anderson. Conversely, the party underperformed in areas where the Conservatives nominated candidates noted for their stances on key issues like Brexit.
The comprehensive constituency-level analysis included over 70 data points for each seat, encompassing demographic, economic, public service, and health aspects. This level of detail illuminated nuances in voter behavior, such as the realization that a predominately white population didn’t singularly guarantee support for Reform.
Gollings explained that while polling indicates a higher propensity for white voters to back Reform, a more in-depth analysis reveals shifts in racial demographics correlate with increased support for the party. Regions witnessing a modest decline in white populations were more likely to favor Reform candidates.
Despite the political impact of levelling up funding, a report from the think tank Labour Together highlighted a persistent disparity in government investment, illustrating that successive administrations allocated more resources to stimulate economic growth in the south-east than in other parts of the country—an imbalance most pronounced under Boris Johnson’s leadership.
The analysis of spending data shows that over the past 16 years, government investments in housing, education, and infrastructure in the south-east exceeded those in other regions by nearly 15%. This gap peaked between 2019 and 2024, averaging 19%. Over this 16-year span from 2008 to 2024, the south-east benefitted from an estimated £100 billion more in growth-related spending than the rest of the country.
Source
www.theguardian.com