The counter-intuitive voting patterns of those who vote for parties that exploit them. It seems paradoxical that many poorer people would vote Conservative when it is the Conservatives who's interests run counter to those voters. However, there are two main reasons why this happens.
The poorest in society feel the most vulnerable and primarily look to leaders who appear strong and decisive and the most likely to provide them with security. Historically, that is how the Conservative Party have presented themselves: truly patriotic, God-fearing, preservers of a known and secure way of life. It is why the rank and file supporters of authoritarian leaders have, in the past been the poorest and more rural members of society: think Napoleon in France, Mussolini (and now the far-right once more) in Italy, the rural poor in South America and East Asia and the tribal 'nationalists' in Africa. By contrast, Labour leaders on the far-left have espoused the internationalist creed - the solidarity of the international proletariat. However, the word proletariat was coined to describe a class that is (a) largely urban and (b) the politicised working class centred in industrial communities. Conversely, it is the poorest in our society - the long-term unemployed, the sick and disabled, those in insecure or zero-hours jobs and without secure housing - who rail against immigration, control from outside our country (the EU) and the concept of being left open to external influences.
The other principal reason why poor communities support Conservative leaders is the belief that being well-off financially and comfortable is the exclusive domain of the Conservative creed. That to vote left wing is to have no sense of betterment. This is a perception largely concentrated among the poorest in communities that lack major employers, employing large workforces. It is seen most clearly in the so-called, post-industrial old towns of the North and Midlands -the Red Wall.
