Living in a Labour area is demonstrably bad for your wallet, your education, and means you’re more likely to be on benefits, a data analysis has revealed.
Lee Jenkins at the libertarian Backbencher blog has run a basic analysis of the safest Conservative Party held seats in the UK, versus the safest Labour Party seats. Jenkins used statistics from the Office for National Statistics, University College Union, and the Department for Work and Pensions to show that on three key measures, those living in Conservative areas are better off than their Labour counterparts.
Jenkins showed that in terms of annual pay, the lowest median average from the five safest Tory seats was in Newbury, at £24,480. The lowest from the Labour safe seats is Liverpool Walton, at just £16,027 per year.
On education, it appears that at a maximum, just 10.5 percent of those in a Conservative safe seat had no qualifications (Surrey South West). Whereas in the worst case scenario for Labour, Liverpool Walton again, almost a quarter of people living there had no qualifications.
Finally on the measure of welfare, the worst situation for the Tories is Newbury again, which sees 4.2 percent of the population on Job Seeker’s Allowance, 4.5 percent of the population on incapacity benefit, and 6.2 percent of people on income support.
For Labour, Knowsley seems to have the worst situation, with 15.2 percent of people on Job Seeker’s Allowance, 16.7 percent of people on incapacity benefit, and a whopping 30.7 percent on income support.
Of course the statistics do not imply or prove causation either way, although it may be argued that living in a nicer area may cause you to vote Conservative. Lee Jenkins told Breitbart London: “There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between those dependent on the state and the party which enjoys the electoral benefits of a quasi client state. Four of Labour’s five safest seats are in Liverpool, where 30 percent of workers are public sector employees.”