IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v34y2019i6p589-606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It’s more complicated than that!: Unpacking ‘Left Behind Britain’ and some other spatial tropes following the UK’s 2016 EU referendum

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Nurse
  • Olivier Sykes

Abstract

In the aftermath of the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, a number of dominant narratives and spatial imaginaries of ‘Brexit’ have come to the fore including the notion of a revolt of a ‘Left Behind Britain’, and of a generational splintering manifested in different political attitudes. Informed by this context, this paper considers some of these issues at the micro-scale, using voting data from two contiguous local authority districts within the same city region. It presents data from wards that have similar socio-economic conditions and which are highly ranked in the Index of Multiple Deprivation but which voted differently in the referendum. The data reinforce the arguments of those who have claimed that the phenomenon of Brexit is powerfully contextual and that general socio-economic analyses of its causes do not fully explain why some areas and populations voted to leave the EU and others with comparable profiles voted to remain. With poorer regions predicted to be the biggest economic losers of ‘Brexit’, an understanding of such issues is of material consequence and might inform progressive responses to such populist phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Nurse & Olivier Sykes, 2019. "It’s more complicated than that!: Unpacking ‘Left Behind Britain’ and some other spatial tropes following the UK’s 2016 EU referendum," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(6), pages 589-606, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:34:y:2019:i:6:p:589-606
    DOI: 10.1177/0269094219881356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269094219881356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0269094219881356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Manley & Kelvyn Jones & Ron Johnston, 2017. "The geography of Brexit – What geography? Modelling and predicting the outcome across 380 local authorities," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(3), pages 183-203, May.
    2. Vivien Lowndes & Alison Gardner, 2016. "Local governance under the Conservatives: super-austerity, devolution and the ‘smarter state’," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 357-375, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Nurse & Olivier Sykes, 2020. "Place-based vs. place blind? – Where do England’s new local industrial strategies fit in the ‘levelling up’ agenda?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(4), pages 277-296, June.
    2. Annie Tubadji & Thomas Colwill & Don Webber, 2021. "Voting with your feet or voting for Brexit: The tale of those stuck behind," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(2), pages 247-277, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Rudkin & Lucy Barros & Paweł Dłotko & Wanling Qiu, 2024. "An economic topology of the Brexit vote," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 601-618, March.
    2. Tamás Kaiser, 2023. "Understanding Narratives in Governance: Naming and Framing Regional Inequality in the United Kingdom," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Maximilian Lemprière & Vivien Lowndes, 2019. "Why did the North East Combined Authority fail to achieve a devolution deal with the UK government?," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(2), pages 149-166, March.
    4. Annette Hastings & Nick Bailey & Glen Bramley & Maria Gannon, 2017. "Austerity urbanism in England: The ‘regressive redistribution’ of local government services and the impact on the poor and marginalised," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(9), pages 2007-2024, September.
    5. David Etherington & Martin Jones & Luke Telford, 2022. "COVID crisis, austerity and the ‘Left Behind’ city: Exploring poverty and destitution in Stoke-on-Trent," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 37(8), pages 692-707, December.
    6. Riccardo Crescenzi & Marco Di Cataldo & Alessandra Faggian, 2018. "Internationalized at work and localistic at home: The ‘split’ Europeanization behind Brexit," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(1), pages 117-132, March.
    7. Alexander Wilson & Mark Tewdwr-Jones & Rob Comber, 2019. "Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 286-302, February.
    8. Mark Sandford, 2019. "Money talks: The finances of English Combined Authorities," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(2), pages 106-122, March.
    9. Mell, Ian, 2020. "The impact of austerity on funding green infrastructure: A DPSIR evaluation of the Liverpool Green & Open Space Review (LG&OSR), UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Andrew Smith, 2021. "Sustaining municipal parks in an era of neoliberal austerity: The contested commercialisation of Gunnersbury Park," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 704-722, June.
    11. Crispian Fuller, 2017. "City government in an age of austerity: Discursive institutions and critique," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(4), pages 745-766, April.
    12. Nurse Alexander & Sykes Olivier, 2023. "Levelling Up and The Privileging of sub-national governance in England in the inter-Brexit space," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2-3), pages 161-171, August.
    13. Charlotte Hoole & Stephen Hincks, 2020. "Performing the city-region: Imagineering, devolution and the search for legitimacy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(8), pages 1583-1601, November.
    14. Davina Cooper & Didi Herman, 2020. "Doing activism like a state: Progressive municipal government, Israel/Palestine and BDS," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(1), pages 40-59, February.
    15. Diana Gutiérrez‐Posada & María Plotnikova & Fernando Rubiera‐Morollón, 2021. "“The grass is greener on the other side”: The relationship between the Brexit referendum results and spatial inequalities at the local level," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1481-1500, December.
    16. Andrew Cumbers & Deirdre Shaw & John Crossan & Robert McMaster, 2018. "The Work of Community Gardens: Reclaiming Place for Community in the City," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 32(1), pages 133-149, February.
    17. Moon, Graham & Twigg, Liz & Jones, Kelvyn & Aitken, Grant & Taylor, Joanna, 2019. "The utility of geodemographic indicators in small area estimates of limiting long-term illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 227(C), pages 47-55.
    18. Phil Higson, 2017. "From customer service to customer-driven services: Practitioner perspectives on a strategy for dealing with local authority austerity budgets," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(7), pages 778-795, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:34:y:2019:i:6:p:589-606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.