Thanks for the data and write up, really interesting. A few thoughts:
Large cities include some of the most productive and some of the most state dependent in close proximity, particularly near the centres. Bristol and Edinburgh seem to be much less pronounced with regards to this and contrast less with the surrounding countryside.
Birmingham should probably be broken up at the local government level like London and Manchester have been.
Labour voters cluster in areas of higher welfare spend and Tory ones in areas of lower spend. The LDs appear to be two disparate groups held together by a mixture of being the viable local opposition to another party and the pull of a well organised local party and/or good MP. Reform seem somewhere between the tories and labour, whereas most assumptions would probably place them closer to the latter. Greens and independents aren't truly national parties.
Wales has some truly wacky constituency boundaries. I'm not talking about the population distribution, as I mainly looked at the South.
«Reform seem somewhere between the tories and labour, whereas most assumptions would probably place them closer to the latter.»
Indeed in every election or poll in which the UKIP or Reform UK vote has surged it has been the Conservative vote that has taken the hit far more than the Labour or New Labour vote. Unlikely that tory voters are so dumb to switch from Reform UK even if it is closer to Labour.
«Labour voters cluster in areas of higher welfare spend and Tory ones in areas of lower spend.»
I have been wondering what I have been missing as this blog has devoted some well written and illustrated and valuable posts to welfare recently and I have come up with a speculation as to the motivation for this:
* A lot of tory voters have switched from the Conservatives to Reform UK.
* Many politicians assume (or pretend to assume) that tory voters care mostly about cutting immigration and cutting benefits.
* The "immigration" issue is owned by Farage especially after the Conservatives created the post-COVID-19 surge so the Conservatives cannot get traction trying to out-Farage him on "immigration".
* Therefore the temptation might be to make the "benefits" issue the main point for Conservatives messaging to get voters back from Farage, in particular as the Farage brand is tied to "immigration" so it is best for him to keep his messaging purely on that issue.
If some people feel the latter temptation the first problem is that Conservatives like George Osborne have been setting the level of benefits for the past 14 years (over which they have redistributed nearly £2 trillion from tory voters to leftist voters) so like with "immigration" they have not much credibility with tory voters as to "benefits" either.
That is that after 14 years of Conservative government *any* criticism of the current state of the UK is an attack on the Conservative ability govern. Immigration surged? The Conservatives did it. Benefits splurged? The Conservatives did it.
The Conservative party is now in the same position as the LibDems were in 2015, not so awesome. Conversely Reform UK is now in the same position as the LibDems were in 1997 and in 2010: untainted by a record of government.
«That is that after 14 years of Conservative government *any* criticism of the current state of the UK is an attack on the Conservative ability [to] govern.»
Peter Mandelson decided in the 1990s that to work around the Labor record of government they needed to disclaim all the past policies and ideology and adopt a new name and new policies and ideology so thatcherite "New Labour" with a new logo was created.
The Conservatives unfortunately cannot do something similar because Farage already did it for them.
«But I have about £119 billion of spending in the map below, and overall DWP says spending on people of working age and children was just under £140 billion in 2024/25»
Some interesting numbers related to those £140 billions:
* Total income tax yielded around £310 billions, therefore 45% of income tax confiscated by the government are redistributed to lazy lefties.
* The income tax confiscated from just the top 20% of taxpayers amounts to around 45%-50% of those £310 billions.
Therefore since 2010 the entirety of the income tax confiscated by the socialists (George Osborne and successors) from the top 20% that is mainly from tory voters has been gifted as benefits by them to the bottom 20% that is mainly to leftist voters.
Wow, that River Lea line is dramatic, at first sight you'd think there was an error in the data. It is also notable that it is completely invisible in the ethnicity data.
* The Lea separates lower-rent slums with many HMOs from high-price areas and there are not enough good jobs for everyone and those who are forced to live on minimum wage with tax credits etc. (a lot of "scroungers" are in work) or mean social insurance can only afford to live in the low-rent slums ("on the wrong side of the tracks" or of the river).
* The Lea separates lazy lefties from hard-working tories and despite there being access to good jobs for (mostly) everybody in that area the lazy lefties prefer to be on the overly generous benefits gifted to them by the Conservative governments 2010-2024 so there is a big labour shortage in London which explains why (as per previous post on this blog) 50-60% of employees in London have an "immigrant background".
Sorry, starting to read this, what leapt out at me is the high welfare spending in Lincolnshire. I will read the rest, but Lincolnshire is highly rural, very Tory, and now looking like very Reform. I hope you cover this in the article
Hello - I didn’t write up every single place - here are UC claims in Lincolnshire. They are highly concentrated in Boston, Skegness, Grimsby, and they are pretty low in most of the rural areas.
The main argument in this series and well documented in this particular post seems to me to be that the Conservative governments between 2010 and 2024 have been inflicting socialism on the UK for 14 years by giving away excessively generous benefits thus redistributing over a hundred billions every year from tory voters to leftist voters. I guess that many tory voters reading this will be quite outraged.
«Poorer areas have higher welfare spending. What have I missed here?»
My guess is this:
* Our blogger argues that people on welfare would be better off if the same money were used to fund businesses offering them jobs: step 1: cut benefits to fund cutting taxes on business owners; step 2: "Laffer Curve"; step 3: thanks to many new vacancies the previous benefit claimants get jobs.
* In the 14 years between 2010 and 2024 the Conservatives have not done a significant reform of benefits, so it is time for tory voters to switch to a new party (the frequent use of the word "reform" by our blogger seems non-random).
The other point that you may have missed is this:
«It shows the limits of access to jobs as an explanation for social differences. These are people are living in the side by side same city with pretty similar access to jobs, but in very different social worlds.»
This argument is based on the idea is that there are jobs for all aspiring workers in the “same city” but many people in some "social worlds" prefers to live large on benefits than take jobs which means that many jobs remain vacant.
Thanks for the data and write up, really interesting. A few thoughts:
Large cities include some of the most productive and some of the most state dependent in close proximity, particularly near the centres. Bristol and Edinburgh seem to be much less pronounced with regards to this and contrast less with the surrounding countryside.
Birmingham should probably be broken up at the local government level like London and Manchester have been.
Labour voters cluster in areas of higher welfare spend and Tory ones in areas of lower spend. The LDs appear to be two disparate groups held together by a mixture of being the viable local opposition to another party and the pull of a well organised local party and/or good MP. Reform seem somewhere between the tories and labour, whereas most assumptions would probably place them closer to the latter. Greens and independents aren't truly national parties.
Wales has some truly wacky constituency boundaries. I'm not talking about the population distribution, as I mainly looked at the South.
«Reform seem somewhere between the tories and labour, whereas most assumptions would probably place them closer to the latter.»
Indeed in every election or poll in which the UKIP or Reform UK vote has surged it has been the Conservative vote that has taken the hit far more than the Labour or New Labour vote. Unlikely that tory voters are so dumb to switch from Reform UK even if it is closer to Labour.
«Labour voters cluster in areas of higher welfare spend and Tory ones in areas of lower spend.»
I have been wondering what I have been missing as this blog has devoted some well written and illustrated and valuable posts to welfare recently and I have come up with a speculation as to the motivation for this:
* A lot of tory voters have switched from the Conservatives to Reform UK.
* Many politicians assume (or pretend to assume) that tory voters care mostly about cutting immigration and cutting benefits.
* The "immigration" issue is owned by Farage especially after the Conservatives created the post-COVID-19 surge so the Conservatives cannot get traction trying to out-Farage him on "immigration".
* Therefore the temptation might be to make the "benefits" issue the main point for Conservatives messaging to get voters back from Farage, in particular as the Farage brand is tied to "immigration" so it is best for him to keep his messaging purely on that issue.
If some people feel the latter temptation the first problem is that Conservatives like George Osborne have been setting the level of benefits for the past 14 years (over which they have redistributed nearly £2 trillion from tory voters to leftist voters) so like with "immigration" they have not much credibility with tory voters as to "benefits" either.
That is that after 14 years of Conservative government *any* criticism of the current state of the UK is an attack on the Conservative ability govern. Immigration surged? The Conservatives did it. Benefits splurged? The Conservatives did it.
The Conservative party is now in the same position as the LibDems were in 2015, not so awesome. Conversely Reform UK is now in the same position as the LibDems were in 1997 and in 2010: untainted by a record of government.
«That is that after 14 years of Conservative government *any* criticism of the current state of the UK is an attack on the Conservative ability [to] govern.»
Peter Mandelson decided in the 1990s that to work around the Labor record of government they needed to disclaim all the past policies and ideology and adopt a new name and new policies and ideology so thatcherite "New Labour" with a new logo was created.
The Conservatives unfortunately cannot do something similar because Farage already did it for them.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/02/21/januarys-record-tax-receipts-the-real-story-that-was-not-told/
«But I have about £119 billion of spending in the map below, and overall DWP says spending on people of working age and children was just under £140 billion in 2024/25»
Some interesting numbers related to those £140 billions:
* Total income tax yielded around £310 billions, therefore 45% of income tax confiscated by the government are redistributed to lazy lefties.
* The income tax confiscated from just the top 20% of taxpayers amounts to around 45%-50% of those £310 billions.
Therefore since 2010 the entirety of the income tax confiscated by the socialists (George Osborne and successors) from the top 20% that is mainly from tory voters has been gifted as benefits by them to the bottom 20% that is mainly to leftist voters.
Wow, that River Lea line is dramatic, at first sight you'd think there was an error in the data. It is also notable that it is completely invisible in the ethnicity data.
«that River Lea line is dramatic»
There are among many two possible explanations:
* The Lea separates lower-rent slums with many HMOs from high-price areas and there are not enough good jobs for everyone and those who are forced to live on minimum wage with tax credits etc. (a lot of "scroungers" are in work) or mean social insurance can only afford to live in the low-rent slums ("on the wrong side of the tracks" or of the river).
* The Lea separates lazy lefties from hard-working tories and despite there being access to good jobs for (mostly) everybody in that area the lazy lefties prefer to be on the overly generous benefits gifted to them by the Conservative governments 2010-2024 so there is a big labour shortage in London which explains why (as per previous post on this blog) 50-60% of employees in London have an "immigrant background".
"We report, you decide" :-)
Sorry, starting to read this, what leapt out at me is the high welfare spending in Lincolnshire. I will read the rest, but Lincolnshire is highly rural, very Tory, and now looking like very Reform. I hope you cover this in the article
Hello - I didn’t write up every single place - here are UC claims in Lincolnshire. They are highly concentrated in Boston, Skegness, Grimsby, and they are pretty low in most of the rural areas.
No, not mentioned, aside from a general comment about Reform also linked to higher benefit spending (where?). Not interested in rural poverty?
The main argument in this series and well documented in this particular post seems to me to be that the Conservative governments between 2010 and 2024 have been inflicting socialism on the UK for 14 years by giving away excessively generous benefits thus redistributing over a hundred billions every year from tory voters to leftist voters. I guess that many tory voters reading this will be quite outraged.
Poorer areas have higher welfare spending.
What have I missed here?
«Poorer areas have higher welfare spending. What have I missed here?»
My guess is this:
* Our blogger argues that people on welfare would be better off if the same money were used to fund businesses offering them jobs: step 1: cut benefits to fund cutting taxes on business owners; step 2: "Laffer Curve"; step 3: thanks to many new vacancies the previous benefit claimants get jobs.
* In the 14 years between 2010 and 2024 the Conservatives have not done a significant reform of benefits, so it is time for tory voters to switch to a new party (the frequent use of the word "reform" by our blogger seems non-random).
The other point that you may have missed is this:
«It shows the limits of access to jobs as an explanation for social differences. These are people are living in the side by side same city with pretty similar access to jobs, but in very different social worlds.»
This argument is based on the idea is that there are jobs for all aspiring workers in the “same city” but many people in some "social worlds" prefers to live large on benefits than take jobs which means that many jobs remain vacant.
Great post. If only there were more politicians like you.