Study links poorer health in coastal constituencies to rising support for Reform UK

Research from Imperial College London reveals a significant correlation between high levels of health challenges in deprived coastal areas and increased voting support for Reform UK, highlighting health disparities as a driver of political realignment.

A recent study by Imperial College London suggests a compelling link between poorer health and voting patterns, particularly pointing to Reform UK as the party attracting more support from constituencies with higher incidences of health challenges. Analysis of the 2024 general election revealed that Reform UK secured 14.3% of the vote and won five seats, three of which were in the most deprived fifth of the country. These constituencies also had populations with notable health disparities, including higher rates of chronic illnesses such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary heart disease, dementia, depression, diabetes, and obesity.

The research, published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, highlighted that Reform UK areas had significantly higher prevalence rates for conditions like asthma (7.44% versus 6.58% in Labour areas) and COPD (2.85% versus 1.99% in Labour areas). Coronary heart disease and depression were also more prevalent in Reform constituencies compared to Conservative and Liberal Democrat regions, respectively. The strongest associations between support for Reform and specific health conditions were found with obesity, COPD, and epilepsy.

Researchers interpreted these findings as reflecting broader socio-political dynamics seen elsewhere. They drew parallels with studies from the United States, where poorer healthcare outcomes correlate with Republican voting, and from Italy, where dissatisfaction with public services fuels far-right support. In the UK context, the closure of local healthcare facilities has been linked to decreased patient satisfaction and increased backing for populist right parties. Lung health, in particular, appears influenced by health inequality, with conditions causing breathlessness potentially shaping voting behaviour.

The study team noted that austerity policies in the UK, compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, have exacerbated gaps in healthcare provision, particularly affecting those with long-term lung conditions. Inadequate housing—cold or damp homes—further worsens health outcomes by increasing risks of acute exacerbations and hospitalisations. These factors together contribute to a sense of frustration with the established political order, which may drive support for parties promising change.

Geographically, three of the five Reform UK constituencies are coastal areas characterised by older, poorer populations with more chronic health conditions, aligning with the demographic and social risk factors identified. The interplay of physical and mental health difficulties also appears to influence political alignment, supporting the notion that health disparities are entwined with broader social discontent that populist movements can capitalise on.

While Reform UK has yet to comment on the study, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care responded by emphasising government efforts to recover the NHS after a prolonged period of decline. Initiatives cited include delivering additional appointments, reducing waiting lists, recruiting more general practitioners, and investing an additional £26 billion to modernise health services and increase patient control.

This study sits within a growing body of evidence underscoring health inequalities as a significant factor contributing to social and political divides. Other research from Imperial College highlights widening gaps in heart disease mortality between rich and poor, with the most deprived areas seeing smaller improvements over decades. Additionally, nearly 15% of people in England live with multiple long-term health conditions, requiring comprehensive healthcare approaches. Socioeconomic disparities are also evident in blood pressure management and healthcare access among adolescents and children, with ethnic minority and impoverished groups facing higher risks of adverse outcomes.

Together, these findings paint a picture of health inequities shaping lived experiences and political landscapes, where poorer health and limited access to services correlate with shifting electoral loyalties, particularly towards populist parties promising reform.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative is based on a recent study published in BMJ Open Respiratory Research on October 14, 2025, and is covered by reputable sources such as The Irish News and Imperial College London’s official news page. ([irishnews.com](https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/people-in-poorer-health-more-likely-to-vote-reform-uk-4ND2JEAVRBLWLIXD7KTMOCHG54/?utm_source=openai))

Quotes check

Score:
10

Notes:
The direct quotes in the narrative are consistent with those found in the original study and its coverage by reputable sources, indicating originality and no evidence of reused content.

Source reliability

Score:
10

Notes:
The narrative originates from The Irish News, a reputable UK news outlet, and references a study from Imperial College London, a respected academic institution.

Plausability check

Score:
10

Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are supported by the referenced study and align with existing knowledge about health disparities and voting patterns in the UK. The study’s findings are consistent with previous research on the relationship between health inequalities and political preferences.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
The narrative is based on a recent, original study from a reputable source, with consistent and plausible claims supported by evidence. There are no indications of recycled content, disinformation, or reliability issues.