A useful new report from the Resolution Foundation has busted some lazy stereotypes about the so-called “blue wall’ of new Tory seats in the Midlands and the North. It turns out Blue Wall communities aren’t especially poor or elderly or subject to population decline. What makes them different are issues like lack of population churn — with relatively few people moving in or out —  and shorter travel to work times compared to other parts of the country. Very few commuters use public transport.

Some commentators — like Frances Coppola writing for CapX — have jumped on these findings to make the case that Blue Wall workers need to “get on their bikes,” i.e. travel further for work to maximise their earning opportunities.

I’d respectfully disagree with this interpretation. If they’re not commuting long distances then blame geography not lack of effort. Blue Wall seats tend to be centred on small cities and large towns, and so they have their own distinct economic geography: enough urban density to provide local jobs, but patchy connections to neighbouring centres of employment.