Geography is back in fashion. Long seen as the preserve of middle-aged men with elbow patches, it’s now centre stage with the prime minister’s talk of levelling up poorer regions. The problem with Britain’s elite belatedly returning to geography is that they don’t seem to grasp its complexity.
I keep being told the problem facing the “red wall” seats in the north and Midlands that swung to the Conservatives from Labour in 2019 is that all the young people leave for university or work. But young people in those seats are much less likely to leave. It’s this lack of mobility that defines England’s new political battlegrounds.
Research on access to elite universities reinforces the complexity. In headline terms, rural areas do best for top university places but that’s not the story’s end. Once the authors correct for the very different populations of different areas (that is, generally richer in the shires), they find disadvantaged young people in our big cities (such as London’s east end) were actually more likely to gain a place than similar students elsewhere.
This tells you two things. First, big cities have more than their share of poor families – overall, Londoners have below average disposable incomes. Second, instead of worrying that the young are leaving, we should ensure disadvantaged youths outside cities have more opportunities so they can decide whether or not to take them up. The lesson? Geography, like life, is complicated.
Torsten Bell is chief executive of the Resolution Foundation. Read more at resolutionfoundation.org
