Subscribe Here | Send your thoughts

Dear friend,

Happy Friday! Hope you’ve had a great week.

In this week’s newsletter:

• How Britons are responding to the war in Iran, and how they want the Prime Minister to handle UK-US relations.

• The complicated politics of deprivation - looking at the different geographic areas where Reform UK and the Green Party are fuelled by financial insecurity.

• Sexuality and voting behaviour - why does Reform UK now lead among gay and bisexual men?

• Can Labour leaders in Wales and Scotland show they are independent from Westminster?

• An invitation to our upcoming event with UK in a Changing Europe: Political Fragmentation and the Future of the Centre in UK Politics

How are Britons responding to Iran? And do they want to see a “Love Actually” moment between Starmer and Trump?

Ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, we found that while most Brits disapproved of the US President, they tended to want a pragmatic, diplomatic approach from the Prime Minister: 44 per cent said that Starmer should prioritise working with Donald Trump, while 37 per cent said that he should prioritise standing up to him.

Fast forward to today, and as the war in Iran closes its second week most Britons (55 per cent) now want the Prime Minister to prioritise standing up to Trump; only 27 per cent say the priority should be working with the President. Meanwhile a dwindling minority of Britons believe that a “special relationship” exists at all: only 34 per cent say that the special relationship exists, a decline from 38 per cent in July last year.

So it looks like there’s now an appetite for a slightly tougher, more “Love Actually” stance from the PM. But what does channeling Hugh Grant actually look like, and what does it mean for the war in Iran?

So far, it seems that the Prime Minister is broadly aligned with public opinion in his approach to the conflict. 

On the US making use of UK airbases, the median Briton appears to support a limited and defensive role. 37 per cent say Britain should allow some of its overseas bases to be used for defensive strikes, but not for offensive operations. The same share believe Britain should not be involved at all and should not allow its bases to be used. Meanwhile, just 17 per cent support Britain enabling offensive action or joining strikes on Iran, and only 9 per cent say the UK should fully join the conflict.

But while the public may want to limit our support for the US in this conflict, that doesn’t mean a wider break away from the US: only 9 per cent of Britons say the UK and US have no common interests internationally. Forty-four per cent believe we share many interests, and a further 10 per cent say our interests are almost entirely aligned.

But managing our relationship with the US is only part of the Prime Minister’s challenge in this conflict. For the British public, the most immediate priority will likely be how well the government can keep citizens safe in an increasingly dangerous world . Eighty-six per cent of the public now say that the world today is more dangerous than the one they grew up in - an increase of 9 points since January this year. And only 17 per cent believe that Britain is still a major power on the international stage.

Seven in ten Britons say the UK has a responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of all its citizens, including those living overseas. Just 23 per cent disagree. Across every major party, at least two thirds of voters believe Britain’s duty extends to its citizens abroad.

The lack of readiness of Britain’s armed forces, the attack on Cyprus, and concerns about the government’s ability to protect Britons abroad are clearly issues of major public concern, and will no doubt reignite debates about the need for Britain to invest more in its armed forces.

The complicated politics of deprivation

Much of our analysis explores how financial insecurity and hardship are pushing voters away from the political mainstream as voters reject a status quo that doesn’t work for them. Both the Green Party and Reform UK find their highest vote share among those who struggle to make ends meet, while Labour and Conservatives both perform better among the financially comfortable.

But there is another layer to this story. When we zoom out and look at the geography of Reform and the Greens’ rise, we can see a slightly more complicated relationship between poverty and populism. Our MRP finds a mild correlation between overall deprivation and support for the two insurgent parties. However, when we break deprivation down into its different components (using the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation), it becomes clear that Reform and the Greens attract support in different types of places.

Reform performs better in post-industrial areas with weak employment, high health deprivation and low educational opportunities.

Reform’s strongest support comes from places with a low skills base, poor health, and weak labour markets - areas that may feel economically “left behind”.

These constituencies are defined by high employment deprivation (which measures the working-age population involuntarily excluded from the labour market), health deprivation (high rates of premature death, poor physical/mental health, and disability) and education, skills and training deprivation (measures the lack of qualification and skills in an area, as well as education deprivation for children/young people).

These are often former industrial towns, struggling coastal communities, and peripheral urban areas where economic opportunity has been limited for decades. Seats such as Clacton, Blackpool South, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Barnsley South illustrate this pattern.

The Green Party performs well in urban seats with low incomes and poor housing.

While Reform UK thrives in post-industrial towns, the Greens perform best in urban constituencies marked by high in-work poverty, poor housing, pollution, and degraded local environments, where concerns about quality of life and living conditions are more visible.

These constituencies are defined by high income deprivation (marked by the proportion of people on low income, including in-work poverty) and high living environment deprivation (marked by poor housing quality, overcrowding and air quality).

The Green Party is overrepresented (performing above the 13 per cent England-wide average) in 9 of the 10 most deprived seats by income deprivation, and 7 of the 10 most deprived seats by living environment deprivation. Examples of these seats  include Birmingham Ladywood, Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Dulwich and West Norwood, Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, and Tottenham.

Of course, age plays a role in this pattern. Many of these urban seats have relatively young populations, which helps explain why the Green vote share is higher. But the interaction between youth and financial insecurity also matters. Among financially comfortable Gen Z voters, the Green Party earns around 18 per cent of the vote. Among Gen Z Britons who are struggling financially, this rises to around 30 per cent. In other words, places with large numbers of young people experiencing economic pressure are particularly fertile ground for the Greens.

So while financial insecurity is clearly driving people toward insurgent parties, the specific experiences of deprivation and local decline also matter: in post-industrial towns, a sense of economic exclusion, lacking investment and limited opportunity might be pushing voters toward Reform. In urban areas, insecure housing, squeezed incomes and poor living conditions is fuelling the Greens and independents. 

As we saw in Gorton and Denton - a seat that has areas that are high in both categories of deprivation - experience of the cost of living crisis and hardship was central in driving voters away from Labour in both directions.

Chris Clarke’s Substack - using our MRP - looks in much more detail at the distinct indices of deprivation and how they interact with voting behaviour. He also takes a closer look at the Gorton and Denton by-election in this context. Give it a read here.

And Bloomberg also wrote a great piece on this analysis, which you can find here.

Sexuality and voting behaviour

We’ve been looking at how voting intention differs by sexual orientation and gender. 

Interestingly, Reform UK now leads among gay and bisexual men, though by a smaller margin than among straight men. The picture is quite different among gay and bisexual women. Here, the Green Party leads the field, with a striking 16-point lead over Labour.

Looking at trends over the past 20 months since the election, Labour’s decline in vote share has been particularly dramatic among gay and bisexual voters. Among gay and bisexual men, Labour’s vote share has fallen by 23 points, and by 21 points among gay and bisexual women.

Both Reform and the Greens have gained support across sexualities. Reform has gained 12 points among both straight men and women, and five points among gay and bisexual voters.

 
So while Reform has made significant gains among gay and bisexual men, this likely isn’t due to a unique appeal to these groups, but just an expansion of their voter base in general. Gay and bisexual men still tend to skew left: right-leaning parties attract 53 per cent of straight men, but 40 per cent of gay and bisexual men. It’s also worth pointing out that these patterns aren’t unique to the UK, as polling in France and Germany has found an increasing proportion of gay and bisexual men supporting populist or radical right parties.

Can Labour leaders in Wales and Scotland show they are independent from Westminster?

Our recent polling has explored how voters in Wales and Scotland view their devolved Labour leaders, and whether they believe those leaders would stand up to Westminster.

The results suggest a significant challenge for Labour ahead of the May elections, with less than half of Scots and Welsh people saying Eluned Morgan and Anas Sarwar would be able to challenge Starmer.

However, it seems that Anas Sarwar’s willingness to make direct criticisms of the Prime Minister may have paid off to some extent here. Scots are more likely to believe that Sarwar would prioritise Scotland’s interests and be willing to challenge Westminster. Around 37 per cent of Scots say he would stand up to the UK government if necessary, compared with 35 per cent who believe he would prioritise party unity.
In Wales, however, voters are more sceptical. Only 29 per cent believe Eluned Morgan would stand up to Westminster, while 36 per cent say she would prioritise Labour unity instead.

This gap becomes even clearer among those who have voted Labour. Among Scots who voted Labour in 2024, 63 per cent believe Sarwar would prioritise Scotland’s interests and challenge Westminster if needed. Among Welsh Labour voters, fewer than half (49 per cent) say the same about Morgan.

More broadly, both Welsh and Scottish Labour appear to face competition from parties that voters see as more willing to stand up for their nations. In Wales, only 28 per cent say Welsh Labour would stand up to Keir Starmer, compared with 49 per cent for Plaid Cymru and 52 per cent for Reform UK. In Scotland, just 36 per cent say Scottish Labour would challenge Starmer if necessary, well behind both the SNP (51 per cent) and Reform (50 per cent).

Ahead of the elections in May, one of the key challenges for Scottish and Welsh Labour will be demonstrating that they place their nations’ interests ahead of party unity, and rebuking accusations from nationalist parties that they are just “branch managers” for the Westminster party.

Invitation: Political Fragmentation and the Future of the Centre in UK Politics - held in partnership with UK in a Changing Europe.

Our political system is undergoing a period of significant fragmentation. Long-standing party loyalties have weakened, trust in institutions has declined, and new political divides now cut across traditional left - right lines. This panel will examine what these changes mean for the political centre and for effective policymaking. Speakers will explore whether the centre can still act as a stabilising force - and what fragmentation means for representation, consensus-building and governance in the UK. At this session, we will be joined by Professor Jane Green from Oxford University, Sam Freedman from Institute for Government, Adam Payne from PoliticsHome, Sophie Stowers from More in Common and Anand Menon from UK in a Changing Europe.

This event will take place on Thursday, 19 March from 18:30 to 20:30 at the Rennie Room, One George Street, 1 Great George Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3AA.

If you’d like to attend, please RSVP through the link below:

That’s all for this week - thanks so much for reading. And as always, do let us know what you think!

Best wishes,

Luke