Reform’s ‘Shadow Chancellor’ Robert Jenrick campaigned with Nigel Farage in Redcar on Monday (Image: Andy Commins)
Voters in Britain’s former industrial heartlands have been “betrayed” by the Conservatives and taken for granted by Labour, according to the man Nigel Farage wants to appoint Chancellor in a Reform UK Government. Robert Jenrick, who once battled Kemi Badenoch for the Tory leadership, visited the iconic Red Wall seat of Redcar on Monday and set out his ambitions for Reform to be the true “workers’ party”. The 44-year-old walked along the seafront and described how the voters who handed the seat to Boris Johnson’s Conservatives in 2019 feel “totally betrayed by that government”, blasting the former prime minister’s “fanatical” support for net zero and the Tories’ record on immigration.
Turning his fire on a former Hartlepool MP, he said: “The truth is this area had Labour politicians who took it for granted, like Peter Mandelson, who just saw these as safe Labour seats where they could have a nice perch and do what they wanted down in Westminster.” Mr Jenrick is fighting for Reform to win in seats which “voted for change” in 2019 before backing Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party in 2024 and discovering this is “even worse”. He said: “This cycle of constant failure and betrayal has to come to an end. That’s the point of Reform.”
Setting out his ambitions for the party which was in second place in Politico’s poll of polls on Monday on 22% – behind Andy Burnham’s Labour (26%) but ahead of Mrs Badenoch’s Conservatives (18%) – he said: “I want Reform to be a workers’ party. Everything [we do] should be putting British workers and pensioners who’ve worked hard their whole lives first. That means that my job is to cut all the waste, the stuff that other governments just won’t tackle, like foreign aid, migrants on benefits and net zero subsidies, and use the tens of billions that we save [to] make life better for people in places like this.”
Describing a flagship policy, he said: “We want to raise the personal allowance to £15,000 so that an average worker in a place like Redcar can get £500 extra a year – £1,000 if you’re a family with two people in the workplace.”
His party is a proud defender of the triple lock, the safeguard against pensioner poverty which Mr Burnham wants to alter to fund a National Care Service. Confident that as Chancellor he could help revive the centre of the town, he said: “If we can save industry in the north of England by scrapping net zero then we give these businesses a fighting chance of recovering.”
Redcar’s steelworks have been closed since 2015 but taxpayers are spending £1.3million a day, according to Westminster’s public accounts committee, keeping British Steel’s blast furnaces at Scunthorpe open to preserve the country’s primary steelmaking capacity. “We have to keep them open, and we’ve got to invest in their future,” Mr Jenrick said. “At the moment you’ve got a Government that doesn’t really have any plan as to how to make this a viable industry into the future. So, they’re just wasting millions of pounds on sticking plasters and consultants instead of really working out a viable path forward. The only way to do that is bring down the cost of energy by scrapping net zero and potentially stick tariffs on Chinese imports of steel and other products like cars to stop people dumping on our industry here and destroying the remaining jobs in heavy industry. At the moment Reform is the only party that’s willing to do that.”
He is not impressed by Mr Burnham’s pledge to set out options for a new partnership with the European Union, arguing the UK has performed better in recent years than comparable EU economies.
“[The] problems our country faces are not because of Brexit and the worst thing that we could do now is spend the next five to 10 years in another pointless debate about Britain’s relationship with the European Union,” he said.
However, the former immigration minister is damning in his account of Britain’s record in this area since Brexit. He claimed his old party “managed to design an immigration system even more liberal than the one that we had in the EU, where we traded high-skilled, motivated people from Eastern Europe for low-skilled workers”.
Claiming that post-Brexit “opportunities are out there to be seized”, he said: “We can fix this. I am optimistic on the economy that we can turn things around… If you have a Government that comes in with a serious plan it can create a climate of optimism very quickly and get things moving again.”
Robert Jenrick is on track to run the Treasury in a Reform UK Government (Image: Andy Commins)
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
If he moves into the Treasury, he may face many of the same challenges which today confront Chancellor John Healey as he wrestles with numerous threats to the public finances. Does he fear market panic? Mr Jenrick said that neither the Conservatives nor Labour had “instilled enthusiasm” in the markets. “We’ve had Liz Truss’s mini-budget, Rachel Reeves crying in the House of Common, John Healey making promises he can’t keep,” he said. “I think there’s actually an opportunity to come in and surprise the markets [and show] that for the first time in a long time they’ve got serious people running this country. The way to do it, actually, is cutting the benefits bill. That’s what is the number one thing you could do, very quickly, to instil confidence in the bond markets.”
Bringing down benefits payments, he said, would show investors that “we’re serious people who know what we’re doing and we’re going to be careful with people’s money”. Mr Jenrick joined Reform in January after being sacked as Shadow Justice Secretary by Mrs Badenoch. Did it feel strange for him not to be with former colleagues in Birmingham for the annual conference?
He said: “I always like going to Birmingham because I was born in Wolverhampton… But no, I [am] actually very pleased to be in Reform and this feels like home to me, so it’s been great.”
Days later, after Mrs Badenoch had delivered her conference speech and pledged to exempt family homes from inheritance tax, Mr Jenrick told the Express: “The Tories have given up on working people, in favour of their mates in Kensington. Andy Burnham abandoned them too to court votes on Benefits Street. Reform is the only national party interested in cutting taxes on the hard-working majority. That’s why in my first Budget I will raise the tax-free personal allowance to £15,000 to give 40 million a tax cut. It’ll mean the state pension is never taxed and work pays again.”
The ‘Abandoned’ UK Seaside Town ‘Betrayed’ by Burnham and Boris – ‘We’ll Give Locals £500’
Across Britain, seaside towns that once attracted thousands of holidaymakers are struggling to find a new identity in an economy that has changed dramatically. Behind the familiar images of traditional piers, amusement arcades and windswept promenades lies a more complicated story: declining investment, pressure on public services, struggling high streets and residents who feel that politicians have repeatedly promised change without delivering enough of it.
One such coastal community has become a symbol of the growing frustration felt by people who believe their towns have been left behind. Locals have spoken of feeling abandoned, while political figures including Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and former prime minister Boris Johnson have become part of a wider debate about responsibility, broken promises and the future of Britain’s neglected communities.
The suggestion that residents could receive £500 has added another intriguing dimension to the story. For households facing rising living costs, even a relatively modest payment could provide welcome relief. But the bigger question is whether one-off financial assistance can make a lasting difference to a community dealing with problems that have developed over many years.
For residents, the issue is not simply about money. It is about whether anyone in power genuinely understands what life is like in a town where opportunities appear to be shrinking and the future can seem increasingly uncertain.
A Seaside Town Left Behind
Britain’s traditional seaside towns once occupied an important place in the national imagination. Families travelled by train or car for summer holidays, visitors spent money in local cafés and hotels, and entertainment venues provided employment for generations of residents.
The seaside economy supported far more than tourism. It sustained shops, restaurants, guesthouses, transport services and seasonal businesses. In many places, these industries helped create a strong sense of local identity and offered young people opportunities to build their lives close to home.
Over time, however, the industry faced enormous challenges.
The growth of cheaper overseas holidays changed the way many British families spent their leisure time. Some traditional resorts struggled to compete with destinations offering warmer weather, modern facilities and relatively affordable package deals. The effects were particularly difficult for towns that depended heavily on seasonal visitors.
Businesses that had once enjoyed busy summers found it harder to maintain income throughout the year. Some hotels closed or changed purpose, while high streets faced growing competition from online shopping and larger retail centres.
The decline was not identical everywhere. Some resorts successfully reinvented themselves through cultural attractions, entertainment, regeneration projects and new tourism offers. Others struggled to attract the investment needed to modernise.
For residents in the most vulnerable communities, the consequences have been profound. Fewer successful businesses can mean fewer jobs, reduced spending in local shops and less money circulating through the economy.
When young people leave to find work elsewhere, the town can lose not only its workforce but also the next generation of entrepreneurs, homeowners and community leaders.
The result is a cycle that can be difficult to break.
Why Residents Feel Betrayed
When people describe their town as abandoned, they are often expressing something deeper than dissatisfaction with a particular government decision.
They may be talking about public spaces that have deteriorated, shops that have remained empty for years, unreliable transport connections or a lack of well-paid jobs. They may also feel that national politicians visit during campaigns, announce initiatives and then move on to other priorities.
Such frustrations can become particularly intense when residents compare their community with places that appear to have benefited from major investment.
A new transport project, shopping development or cultural attraction can transform the prospects of one area, while another continues to struggle with ageing infrastructure and declining commercial activity.
The political consequences are significant. People who feel overlooked may become less willing to trust mainstream parties, especially if promises of regeneration repeatedly fail to produce visible results.
Yet the reasons behind a town’s difficulties are rarely straightforward. National economic conditions, local authority finances, private investment decisions, housing pressures and changes in tourism can all play a role.
Politicians may influence these factors, but no single individual is responsible for every problem facing a coastal community.
That distinction matters when examining accusations directed at Andy Burnham or Boris Johnson. Such claims should be assessed against specific policies, decisions and commitments rather than accepted simply because they fit a compelling political narrative.
Andy Burnham and the Politics of Regional Inequality
Andy Burnham has built much of his public profile around regional inequality, devolution and the argument that communities outside London need greater control over their economic futures.
As mayor of Greater Manchester, his responsibilities and political experience are primarily connected to that metropolitan area. His involvement in national debates has nevertheless made him a prominent figure in wider discussions about public services, regional investment and the future direction of Labour.
For residents of struggling seaside towns, the wider questions he raises may sound familiar. Who decides where public money is spent? How can local economies attract investment? And why do some communities appear to have more opportunities than others?
But the circumstances of a coastal resort are not necessarily the same as those of a major city-region.
Seaside towns may depend heavily on tourism, hospitality and seasonal employment. They can face distinctive problems involving older housing, transport links, limited career opportunities and the cost of maintaining facilities that attract visitors.
A policy that works well in a large urban economy may not automatically provide an effective solution for a small coastal community.
Any politician seeking to address these problems must therefore explain how national or regional economic strategies would be adapted to local circumstances.
For Burnham, criticism associated with a neglected seaside town also highlights a broader political challenge: demonstrating that arguments about fairness and regional opportunity can translate into tangible improvements for communities beyond the places where he exercises direct authority.
Boris Johnson and the Unfinished Promise of Levelling Up
Boris Johnson also remains associated with the debate over regional inequality because his government made the idea of “levelling up” a prominent political commitment.
The ambition was to reduce geographical disparities and improve opportunities in communities that had not benefited equally from Britain’s economic development. The agenda included investment in transport, skills, local infrastructure and town-centre regeneration.
For many voters, that promise was attractive. It suggested that places outside the country’s most prosperous regions would receive greater attention and that the benefits of economic growth could be spread more widely.
However, turning a broad political ambition into lasting change is complicated.
Regeneration takes time, funding can be constrained, and projects must compete with other demands on public finances. Even when money is announced, residents may not see immediate improvements in jobs, wages or local business activity.
The effectiveness of any regeneration programme must therefore be assessed through its actual delivery, not simply the language used to promote it.
Did projects go ahead? Were they completed? Did they create sustainable employment? Did local businesses benefit? And did residents experience measurable improvements in their everyday lives?
These are the questions that matter when judging whether political promises have been fulfilled.
It would be misleading to attribute every problem in a seaside town to one former prime minister. Many of the pressures facing coastal communities developed over decades and have continued under different governments. Nevertheless, politicians who make ambitious commitments must accept scrutiny over whether those commitments produced meaningful results.
The £500 Offer: Relief or Political Gesture?
The headline’s reference to giving locals £500 naturally raises questions about the nature of the proposal.
Who would receive the money? Would every resident qualify, or would eligibility depend on income, employment or other circumstances? Would it be a one-off payment, part of a longer-term scheme or a political pledge that has yet to be implemented?
Without those details, it is impossible to assess the proposal properly or conclude that residents will definitely receive the money.
But the broader debate about direct financial support is important.
For a household under pressure, £500 could help cover an energy bill, repair a vehicle needed for work, replace an essential appliance or reduce an outstanding debt. For people living close to the financial edge, a payment of that size could provide breathing space at a difficult moment.
However, a one-off payment cannot replace a stable income or solve the structural problems affecting a local economy.
If employment opportunities remain limited, transport is inadequate and businesses continue to close, residents may find themselves facing the same difficulties again once the money has been spent.
There is also a question of fairness. If public funds are used for direct payments, policymakers must explain who qualifies, how the scheme is financed and why this approach is preferable to other forms of assistance.
A payment may provide immediate relief, but its long-term value depends on how it fits into a broader strategy.
The most effective approach would combine support for households facing immediate hardship with investment designed to create more secure employment and stronger local services.
What Would Actually Revive a Struggling Seaside Town?
Regeneration requires more than a headline-grabbing announcement. It needs a realistic plan that connects employment, infrastructure, housing, tourism and public services.
First, towns need a stronger economic base. Tourism will remain important to many coastal communities, but relying exclusively on seasonal visitors can leave businesses vulnerable. Encouraging new industries, supporting local entrepreneurs and improving access to training could help create a more diverse employment market.
Second, transport links matter. Residents need reliable ways to reach jobs, education and healthcare, while visitors need straightforward access to attractions and accommodation. Better connections can widen the economic opportunities available to a town.
Third, high streets and public spaces require attention. Empty shops and neglected buildings can discourage visitors and undermine confidence among residents. Carefully designed regeneration projects can make town centres more attractive, but they work best when local businesses and communities help shape the plans.
Housing is another major concern. Some coastal towns face ageing properties, poor-quality accommodation and pressures that can make it difficult for workers to find suitable homes. Improving housing standards and ensuring that development meets local needs can support wider economic recovery.
Finally, residents must be involved in decisions about their own communities.
People who live in a town understand its strengths, its problems and the practical obstacles that outside decision-makers may overlook. Consultation should not be a box-ticking exercise after the main decisions have already been made. It should help determine what investment is needed and how success will be measured.
Why the Future of Coastal Britain Matters
The difficulties facing struggling seaside towns raise questions that extend far beyond any individual community.
Britain cannot expect every town to develop in the same way, nor can every place be guaranteed the same economic future. But residents should have a reasonable opportunity to access jobs, education, transport and essential public services regardless of where they live.
When local economies decline for years without a convincing recovery plan, the consequences can spread across generations. Young people may leave, businesses may struggle to recruit, and those who remain can become increasingly sceptical that political leaders understand their circumstances.
That loss of confidence is damaging in its own right.
Successful regeneration must therefore be measured not only by the amount of money announced but by what happens afterwards. Are more people finding secure work? Are businesses surviving? Are public spaces improving? Can young residents imagine building a future in their hometown?
These are more meaningful indicators than a temporary burst of political publicity.
Conclusion: Residents Need More Than Promises
The story of an “abandoned” seaside town reflects a wider frustration with the way Britain addresses regional inequality. Residents who feel betrayed are asking for evidence that political leaders understand their difficulties and are prepared to deliver lasting change.
The criticisms directed at Andy Burnham and Boris Johnson form part of that wider debate, but assigning responsibility requires a careful examination of the decisions each politician actually made and the powers they held.
Likewise, the suggestion that locals could receive £500 deserves scrutiny before it is treated as a confirmed payment scheme. Financial assistance can be valuable, particularly for households under pressure, but the details and funding behind any proposal matter.
Ultimately, struggling coastal communities need a combination of immediate support and long-term economic renewal. They need investment that creates opportunities, transport that connects people to work, housing that meets local needs and public services capable of supporting residents throughout the year.
Most importantly, they need political promises to be followed by measurable results.
A £500 payment might help a family through a difficult month. A well-designed regeneration programme could help change the prospects of an entire community.
For residents who feel that their town has been forgotten, the real test of any politician is whether life becomes demonstrably better — not whether another headline promises that change is finally on its way.