Place-based explanations' of politics in the U.K. tell sweeping narratives about 'Two Englands', or of sizeable regions of the country that have been 'Left Behind', reinforcing popular accounts of a North-South or city-town divide. We introduce the concept of nested deprivationdeprivation that may occur in just one housing estate or even one row of flats within neighbourhoods that are otherwise affluent. We report on intensive fieldwork in 8 neighbourhoods varying in relative affluence and density of population (including urban, suburban/satellite, market town or rural village). Three key themes and consequences emerge for those living in nested deprivation in relatively affluent and geographically dispersed contexts: (a) either disconnection from or entrapment within the local economy; (b) social isolation and atomisation; and (c) powerlessness to affect politics. 'Place-based' explanations of rapid and radical changes to political participation in Britain need to take fine-grained geographical distinctions much more seriously. Our study provides evidence that the rising tides in affluent areas are drowning some residents rather than lifting all boats. Where deprivation is dispersed and then nested within mostly affluent constituencies it does not allow for the political mobilisation among communities of interest that is a necessary condition for pluralist representative democracies.

Some scholars have argued that lower levels of media attention given to female candidates, relative to male candidates, may contribute to the under-representation of women in politics. Yet, other research suggests female candidates may receive more coverage than male candidates. To advance our understanding of this issue, we introduce and analyse a novel dataset measuring the weekly quantity of newspaper coverage given to 72 different candidates across 34 of the most marginal constituencies in the 2015 UK General Election. The data span 31 local and 6 national newspapers. Statistical analyses and two pairs of quantitatively matched, qualitative comparisons suggest that female candidates received more newspaper coverage than male candidates, even after controlling for several alternative predictors of media attention including party, incumbency, and time until election. Our findings have important implications for debates about gender equality in British politics.