General Election 2024: Voting patterns in England by deprivation and community need

The General Election 2024 changed the political geography of the UK. Labour won in areas it had never previously held, while the Liberal Democrats made progress in traditional Conservative strongholds. There were breakthroughs and record vote shares for the smaller parties of UK Reform, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, as well as an unprecedented success for independent candidates. While there has been lots of exploration of the regional changes brought about by the election – it is also interesting to consider whether there are any socio-demographic differences between areas where the different political parties have found electoral success. 

To explore this question we have aggregated the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 and the Community Needs Index 2023 to Parliamentary Constituency level, so that we can compare levels of socio-economic and social infrastructure challenges across different constituencies. Here, we explore whether we can identify any differences between voting patterns and levels of deprivation and community need.

About the Index of Multiple Deprivation and Community Needs Index

The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is the official measure of socio-economic deprivation in England. The IMD is an important tool used by national and local organisations to target resources, develop policy and support decisions about addressing local needs. More specifically, the IMD is used to set a range of national and local government strategies and service planning, including helping understand current need and model future demand for services. Third sector and community organisations also use the IMD to target their services. Indeed, the English Indices of Deprivation 2019 web page, is the most frequently visited MHCLG statistics page and one of the most visited statistics pages across the GOV.UK website. 

The Community Needs Index (CNI) is a small area measure of areas lacking social infrastructure or social capital. The index captures the lack of civic and community assets and spaces to meet, poor connectedness and social isolation and lack of civic participation and third sector activity. The CNI has gained wide usage, for example, it was cited as a measure of Social Capital in the Levelling Up White Paper and has been used as a component in supporting the distribution of a range of levelling up programmes including the DCMS Know Your Neighbourhoods Fund, while Sport England are using the CNI as part of their targeting formula for their new £250m Local Development Partnership.

Note: both of these Indices cover England only, so we have only been able to consider the election results in English Parliamentary Constituencies.

Seats held by Independent, Reform UK and Labour candidates are more deprived than the national average 

The chart below shows the average IMD rank and average CNI rank across all Parliamentary Constituencies in England – by winning political party. A lower rank = higher deprivation/community need, with ranks of below 16,877 indicating higher levels of deprivation/community need than the national average.

Average IMD and CNI ranks by winning party

The five seats held by Independent candidates showed higher levels of deprivation than those held by mainstream political parties. All of these seats are  located in inner city areas with multiple socio-economic challenges. 

The seats held by Reform UK also showed notably higher levels of deprivation than the national average. This reflects their location in peripheral coastal areas with economic challenges.

Labour-held seats were also more deprived than the national average. By contrast, the Liberal Democrat seats were the least deprived on average.

Labour won 19 of the 20 most deprived constituencies 

The table below shows the 20 English Parliamentary Constituencies with the highest levels of deprivation on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019.

Constituency	Result	First party	Second party
Birmingham Ladywood	Lab hold	Lab	Ind
Blackpool South	Lab gain from Con	Lab	RUK
Liverpool Walton	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Liverpool Riverside	Lab hold	Lab	Green
Birmingham Erdington	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Birmingham Hodge Hill & Solihull Nth	Lab hold	Lab	WPB
Knowsley	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Bradford West	Lab hold	Lab	Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr	Ind gain from Lab	Ind	Lab
Wolverhampton South East	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Leeds South	Lab hold	Lab	Green
Liverpool West Derby	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Birmingham Yardley	Lab hold	Lab	WPB
Bradford East	Lab hold	Lab	Ind
Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough	Lab hold	Lab	Green
Bolton South and Walkden	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Walsall and Bloxwich	Lab gain from Con	Lab	Ind
Manchester Rusholme	Lab hold	Lab	Green
Tipton and Wednesbury	Lab gain from Con	Lab	Con
Blackley and Middleton South	Lab hold	Lab	RUK

Labour won 19 of the 20 most deprived constituencies.. Of these, 16 were previously held in 2019 and three were gained from the Conservatives.  An Independent candidate won the remaining constituency, Birmingham Perry Barr.

It is notable that the Conservative party came second in only one of the 20 most deprived constituencies, with smaller parties and independents being the major opposition to the Labour vote. Reform UK came second in eight of the 20 constituencies, the Green’s came second in four constituencies, the Workers Party in two constituencies and Independent candidates in the remaining four constituencies. 

Right-leaning parties performed better in areas with higher levels of community need

The Reform UK seats showed considerably higher levels of community needs than the seats held by other parties, indicating greater social infrastructure challenges in these areas. The Conservative-held seats also performed less well on the Community Needs Index than the national average. By contrast, the seats held by left-leaning parties (Greens and Independents) tended to have the lowest levels of community need.

Reform UK won in the two constituencies with the highest Community Needs scores

The table below shows the 20 English Parliamentary Constituencies with the highest levels of need on the Community Needs Index.

Constituency	Result	First party	Second party
Clacton	RUK gain from Con	RUK	Con
Great Yarmouth	RUK gain from Con	RUK	Con
Isle of Wight East	Con hold	Con	Lab
North Norfolk	LD gain from Con	LD	Con
North West Norfolk	Con hold	Con	Lab
South West Norfolk	Lab gain from Con	Lab	RUK
North East Cambridgeshire	Con hold	Con	Lab
Broadland and Fakenham	Con hold	Con	Lab
Mid Norfolk	Con hold	Con	Lab
Lowestoft	Lab gain from Con	Lab	RUK
Bridgwater	Con hold	Con	Lab
Isle of Wight West	Lab gain from Con	Lab	RUK
Kingston upon Hull East	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
South Norfolk	Lab gain from Con	Lab	RUK
Easington	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Torridge and Tavistock	Con hold	Con	Lab
Louth and Horncastle	Con hold	Con	Lab
South Holland and The Deepings	Con hold	Con	Lab
Normanton and Hemsworth	Lab hold	Lab	RUK
Boston and Skegness	RUK gain from Con	RUK	Con

Three of the five seats won by Reform UK featured in the top 20 constituencies with the highest community needs – including the two constituencies with the highest needs: Clacton and Great Yarmouth. Reform UK also came second in seven of the top 20 seats. The Conservatives held 9 of the 20 constituencies with highest community needs. Labour won seven of these constituencies, while the Liberal Democrats held one. 

Labour’s new seats are less deprived but with higher community need than those they won in 2019

The chart below shows the average IMD and CNI ranks for areas that Labour and the Liberal Democrats held vs those that they won from the Conservatives.

Average IMD and CNI ranks in Labour and Lib Dem seats

The seats that Labour gained from the Conservatives had deprivation levels that were broadly in line with the national average, whereas the seats they held were considerably more deprived than the national average. However, the seats they gained tended to have higher levels of Community Need than the seats they previously held on to. This reflects Labour gains outside of their traditional urban heartlands. 

The seats that the Liberal Democrats gained from the Conservatives tended to be in areas with higher levels of deprivation and higher levels of community need than the seats that they held. However, both the seats they gained, and the seats they held, had lower deprivation and community needs than the national average.

There was not a clear relationship between performance on the Community Needs Index and the Index of Multiple Deprivation. 

The overall findings show some clear differences in deprivation levels and community needs in the constituencies won by the different political parties. However, these relationships are not straightforward.  As we will see below, there is not a clear relationship between community needs and deprivation with regards to election results. The parties that had electoral success in areas with high community need were not necessarily areas that are also economically deprived.   

Reform UK held constituencies performed relatively poorly on both Indices. By contrast, Independent candidates were successful in seats which were relatively deprived but which had low levels of identified community need – reflecting their locations in inner areas with better connectivity, stronger presence of civic assets and a more active and present third sector. The seats won by the Conservatives also on average performed worse in terms of community needs than deprivation, while the opposite was true in Labour areas. Liberal Democrat and Green constituencies tended to perform better on both indices. 

To find out more about the Community Need Index and for all the latest news and analysis please sign up to our Community Needs Index mailing list

Additional resources

Find out more about the data from this analysis below:

• English Indices of Deprivation
• Community Needs Index 2023
• 2024 General Election data

Make your own electoral insights 

Local Insight is our place-based data, mapping and reporting platform. Our latest updates to the platform introduced Parliamentary Constituencies for England, Scotland and Wales as Standard Areas – allowing users to explore data for these newly-defined boundaries and the challenges they may face through more than 1500 indicators.

To learn more about Local Insight, head to the website or book a demo today.

---

Featured posts