The Ambiguous Ideology of Levelling Up

The Conservative Party ’ s ‘ levelling up agenda ’ has been deployed both as a tool for public communication and as a broad motif for the government ’ s policy programme, gaining a great deal of traction as a political message. Levelling up is a vision of a post-Brexit Britain in which there will be greater state investment, educational opportunity, regional equality, and regional independence. However, this vision invokes a wide range of disparate political ideologies without addressing the underlying tensions between them. It speaks to social democrats about tackling deprivation; it speaks to social liberals about equality of opportunity; it speaks to economic liberals about supporting the free market; and it speaks to conservatives about reuniting the nation. If levelling up develops from a political slogan into a fully- ﬂ edged policy programme, it will become increasingly dif ﬁ cult for the government to manage the ideological tensions inherent in the levelling-up agenda.

Introduction SINCE BORIS Johnson became Prime Minister, the phrase 'levelling up' has become the government's all-embracing mantra in its attempt to pull together a divided electoral coalition. In addition to its long-standing political divisions over Europe and over 'moral issues', the Conservative Party subsumed two new political divisions into its midst with its 2019 election win. 1 The first is a geographical division within England between a historically dominant South and an increasingly recalcitrant North. The second is between the tax-and-spend politics of former Labour voters and the low-tax politics of the Conservative base. In attracting blocs of voters from both sides of these political divides, the 'levelling-up agenda' may prove to be invaluable in holding together the Conservative Party's unstable electoral coalition. However, this article argues that the power of 'levelling up' as a communicative tool lies in its ideological ambiguity, which may become a fundamental weakness as the government seeks to implement a levelling-up policy programme.
The first section of the article traces the emergence of the phrase 'levelling up', from its use in debates about school funding under the May administration to its place as a key message in the early days of Johnson's government. Second, the proliferation of the phrase is explored, showing that from its prominence in the Conservative Party's 2019 manifesto, it has become a crossdepartmental mantra for government. In addition to its spread throughout Whitehall, levelling up has also become a touchstone for think tanks, charities, and media outlets seeking to impact public policy. In the third section, the article offers the core of its argument: the phrase levelling up is ideologically ambiguous to the extent that it contains major ideological tensions. Few would be surprised to find that a government policy agenda lacks coherence, but levelling up is notable for the sheer size of its ideological range and its subsequent ideological instability. It speaks to social democrats about tackling deprivation; it speaks to social liberals about equality of opportunity; it speaks to economic liberals about supporting the free market; and it speaks to conservatives about reuniting the nation. However, despite invoking these disparate ideologies, the notion of levelling up does not resolve the underlying tensions between them. While it is electorally convenient in the short term, it will become increasingly problematic in the longer term, as the government is required to manage the ideological tensions contained within.

The emergence of levelling up
The phrases 'levelling up' and 'level up' appear intermittently in Hansard records since the nineteenth century. While there are occurrences across all topics of debate, there is an association with social policy, and particularly with the distribution of school funding. This was the case during the New Labour era, when use of the term increased sharply. As a typical example, then Education Secretary, David Blunkett, explained that the government's further education spending entailed 'levelling up, not levelling down'. 2 During the same period, Theresa May criticised New Labour's education policy, arguing that 'socialism is about levelling down. Conservatism is about levelling up. Socialists believe that, if everyone cannot have something, no one shall. Conservatives reject that.' 3 Clearly, this is a contentious claim, but it is indicative of the appeal of levelling up to Conservative politicians.
The phrase died away from the mid-00s until a resurgence in 2016 when Theresa May became Prime Minister and Justine Greening became Education Secretary. Greening's tenure was marked by an ongoing debate around per pupil funding in which the phrase levelling up played a significant role. This was driven by Greening's agenda, in that she claimed to be 'driving up social mobility by levelling up opportunity '. 4 In this use, levelling up is more than a useful idiom or a technical term in education policy; it indicates a broader political agenda associated with equality of opportunity and social mobility. This agenda can be seen in the Department for Education's White Paper Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential, which outlines how education policy can be used to address the opportunity gap between the most and least deprived children under the strap-line 'levelling up opportunity'. 5 After Greening left the post in January 2018, use of the term levelling up declined dramatically, and barely appeared in the Hansard records that year.
Considering the associations with equality of opportunity and increased education funding, it is easy to see why the phrase appealed to Boris Johnson when he came to power in July 2019, at a time when he needed to bolster support among his party's moderate wing. Although the association with education policy remained, new dimensions of levelling up also emerged, centred around a commitment to greater regional equality in the post-Brexit era. Robert Jenrick, whose role in 2021 is central to the levelling-up agenda, was the first minister in Parliament to refer to levelling up in this way. Three weeks before Johnson won the Conservative leadership, Jenrick explained that the Shared Prosperity Fund (the fund designed to replace EU spending in the UK) 'will seek to raise productivity, focusing on levelling up parts of our country whose economies are further behind'. 6 Later that month, in Johnson's first appearance at the dispatch box, the Prime Minister stated that his government will 'use infrastructure, education and technology to level up across the country'. 7 This same message was repeated in Johnson's 2019 party conference speech, where a commitment was made to 'level up and unify the entire United Kingdom through better education, better infrastructure and technology'. 8 The association between levelling up and infrastructure was taken forward elsewhere, with Chancellor Sajid Javid insisting that the government's 'strategy will deliver better transport, faster broadband and wider mobile coverage. It will level up every region and nation … and deliver an infrastructure revolution.' 9 At the same time, Transport Minister, George Freeman, reinforced the commitment to 'levelling up connectivity', emphasising the need to rebalance transport spending from south to north and from urban to rural areas. 10 In the briefing notes for the October 2019 Queen's speech, this concern with regional inequality began to emerge more clearly, with a 'commitment to levelling up opportunities and investment in the regions' and specifically 'enhanced devolution across England, levelling up the powers between Mayoral Combined Authorities'. 11 This was welcomed in Parliament by Northern Powerhouse minister, Jake Berry, who emphasised the government's 'agenda to level up all the powers of the metro Mayors'. 12 Thus, as the Conservative Party entered the 2019 general election campaign, they had adopted the levelling-up mantra from the moderate wing of the party, which entailed an attempt to create equality of opportunity through education. They had then repurposed the slogan as a general approach to post-Brexit renewal, in which they sought to address place-based inequalities. This furnished the Conservatives with a positive vision for the country, which could be sold to the electorate in tandem with their headline commitment to 'get Brexit done'. Their post-Brexit vision of levelling up emerged with three key aspects: firstly, the existing notion of equality of opportunity through education; secondly, an agenda to improve infrastructure and connectivity in regions with low productivity; and thirdly, a commitment to devolving powers to the English regions.

The proliferation of levelling up
The twin electoral pressures to cut public spending and improve public services has historically created a dilemma for the Conservative Party. After nearly a decade of prioritising spending cuts through the austerity agenda, and coming under electoral pressure about the quality of public services, the Conservatives' 2019 election campaign was underpinned by an explicit shift away from austerity towards higher state spending.
The shift placed the levelling-up agenda at the centre of the party's domestic policy offering, as demonstrated by its prevalence in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. 13 In economic terms, levelling up entailed a commitment to public investment and specifically to 'use this investment prudently and strategically to level up every part of the United Kingdom'. 14 With this concern about the geographic distribution of public investment, levelling up featured prominently in the plan to 'revive our towns and cities', with a promise to 'use this historic investment to level up and connect this country, so that everyone can get a fair share of its future prosperity'. 15  committed it to 'levelling up the nation [by creating] up to ten freeports around the UK'. 16 Therefore, during the 2019 general election campaign, levelling up was presented as the Conservative Party's broader vision for a post-Brexit Britain, in which the government would address place-based inequalities. The focus on regional inequality and devolution chimes with Nurse and Sykes's view that the levelling-up agenda is 'sold as prioritising "left-behind" communities'. 17 According to Pike and Tomaney, the policy objective is 'to achieve levelling up [by] connecting left-behind places to urban growth in big cities through better infrastructure'. 18 Without making any simple causal claim, it is important to note that the outcome of the 2019 election shows Conservative Party support surging in those left-behind regions that they had promised to level up. 19 Throughout 2020, the levelling-up agenda spread across Whitehall. It became one of the Department for Transport's 'five central objectives' to 'level up the economy' by improving 'connectivity across the UK'. 20 The Department for Education has claimed that it is 'levelling up the lowest funded schools'. 21 The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has used the phrase regularly in its publications, and claims that it is 'using science and research to unite and level up our country'. 22 One of the government's flagship post-Brexit economic policies, the creation of freeports, has been justified on the basis that they 'will help to level up the country by bringing jobs, investment and prosperity to some of our most deprived communities'. 23 The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has been developing the levelling-up agenda on two fronts: firstly, in relation to housing policy, it seeks to 'level up England's cities and provide much-needed new homes'; secondly, in relation to English devolution, it has hailed city deals as a 'significant step in the government's ambitious agenda to level up opportunity and prosperity across the country'. 24 The keystone of the levelling-up agenda's proliferation across government is its prominence at the Treasury. In March 2020, Rishi Sunak delivered his first Budget to Parliament, making numerous references to levelling up in relation to infrastructure ('level up with new roads, railways, broadband and homes'), regional economies ('level up with completely new industries in our regions and nations'), education spending ('levelling up further education'), and spreading opportunity ('level up and spread opportunity'). 25 The Spending Review of October 2020 promised 'to put levelling up at the heart of policy making' and 'at the heart [of] an economic recovery for all', with the agenda expanding into new areas of government, including the Department for International Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. 26 In addition to spreading to these new departments, the agenda continued to hold a significant role in its core areas. Perhaps of greatest prominence, 'the government is launching a new Levelling Up Fund worth £4 billion', which aims to 'drive growth and regeneration in places in need' by investing 'in local infrastructure'. 27 Before moving to discuss the ideological implications of the levelling-up agenda, it is important to conclude this section by noting the growth of discussion about levelling up outside government. Rather than dismissing levelling up as an empty election slogan, media outlets and think tanks have engaged in widespread discussion about what it is and how it should be delivered. For example, the Centre for Cities has embraced levelling up as one of its main research themes, publishing a report Why Big Cities Are Crucial To 'Levelling Up'. 28 IPPR North, the Local Government Information Unit and Demos have all published major reports on levelling up. 29 The centreright think tank Onward has made it one of its central themes, and as of September 2020 has linked its research to a group of Conservative MPs calling themselves 'The Levelling Up Taskforce'. 30 Many of these MPs also belong to the recently established Northern Research Group (NRG), which primarily represents former Labour constituencies. In October 2020, the NRG wrote an open letter urging the government 'to reflect carefully on [the] promise to people living in the North during the last election with the levelling up agenda'. 31 Whatever the future of the levelling-up agenda, there will be a high political price to pay for backtracking.

The ideological ambiguities of levelling up
As the levelling-up agenda has developed from a Department for Education initiative to a key message in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, and then to a cross-departmental mantra, it has sprawled into many different sectors and taken on many meanings. It is possible that the term will eventually expand so far that it becomes merely a generic synonym for 'make better', but it is also possible that the government will continue to pursue it as a substantive overarching policy agenda. In doing so, it will need to negotiate a number of ideological tensions that the levelling-up agenda has thus far encircled. The ideological ambiguity of levelling up is precisely why it has been so successful as a political slogan; it acts as an expansive container for disparate policies and priorities without the need to address the tensions between them. From an academic perspective, it is essential to identify and unpack these tensions, allowing us to consider the problems the government is likely to face in the future, and to begin to locate Johnsonian conservatism within the ideological debates of the British political tradition. The levelling-up agenda can be said to contain at least four distinct ideological strands: social liberalism; social democracy; economic liberalism; and one nation conservatism.
Firstly, with regards to social liberalism, levelling up entails a commitment to 'equality of opportunity', historically a central tenet of New Labour's 'third way' and the 'social liberal' wing of the Liberal Democrats. Equality of opportunity is itself a term that holds a great deal of political flexibility, and could entail anything from minimal commitments to equality before the law through to major redistributions of wealth. While the Conservative Party has tended to focus on the former, Cameron's 'modernisation' of the party set in motion a growing concern with a more expansive notion of equality of opportunity based on an acknowledgement of relative poverty and a realisation that a child's early years are decisive for their life chances. 32 Although austerity actually led to an increase in child poverty during Cameron's premiership his leadership drew the Conservatives into the debate on how to tackle childhood inequality of opportunity. 33 Justine Greening took up these concerns during her two years as Education Secretary, outlining 'a plan for improving social mobility through education'. 34 The plan clearly subscribes to a liberal commitment to meritocracy, with the argument that 'talent and hard work alone should determine how far people can go in life'. However, it also entails a wider critique of social inequalities, arguing that 'talent is spread evenly across this country [but] opportunity is not' and that 'less-advantaged children fall behind their affluent peers' and 'disadvantage can become entrenched'. 35 Despite an apparent shift away from Greening's moderate wing of the party, much of this original definition of levelling up has been maintained under Johnson's leadership, with the 2019 manifesto declaring that 'Conservatives believe passionately that every child should have the same opportunity to express their talents and make the most of their lives' and taking from Greening's social mobility document almost verbatim: 'Talent and genius are uniformly distributed throughout the country. Opportunity is not.' 36 Secondly, levelling up entails a commitment to more traditional forms of social democracy, historically associated with the postwar Labour Party. The government claims that its levelling-up agenda aims to tackle inequality and improve the material conditions of leftbehind places. The focus on place-based inequality rather than individual inequality allows the Conservative Party to avoid making a stronger social democratic commitment to major wealth redistribution. However, the levelling-up pledge to address regional inequality does inevitably entail redistribution and economic restructuring, which will require state-led initiatives to counteract the free market's tendency towards wealth concentration. In some ways, this approach chimes with Jackson's definition of social democracy as the application of 'the principles of freedom and equality … to the organization of the economy and society, chiefly by opposing the inequality and oppression created by laissezfaire capitalism'. 37 Addressing longstanding place-based inequalities inevitably relies on an increased role for the state in terms of investment, taxation, and planning. The use of state planning to redress structural inequalities is a central social democratic idea. As a key symbolic example, the government's 2020 Spending Review promised to 'put levelling up at the heart of policy making, including by updating the Green Book and its application'. 38 For decades, the Treasury's 'Green Book' has set the guidelines for cost-benefit analysis of government investment, ensuring that investment concentrates on areas with high productivity, especially London and the South East. 39 On the explicit justification of delivering levelling up, the government has promised a 'refreshed Green Book' that will 'help achieve the aim of addressing regional imbalances', establishing the principle of 'redistribution' within the Treasury's spending decisions. 40 Other examples of redistributive policies include the Levelling Up Fund and the Towns Fund. 41 These state-led redistributive policies speak to a social democratic ideology in a way that is notably uncommon for a post-1979 Conservative Party.
However, two important caveats must be made. Firstly, the funding pots established to drive regional redistribution are based on a competitive bidding system, which tends to favour those regions that already have the resources to put together strong bids. There have also been accusations that this money has been allocated according to electoral calculation, with two MHCLG ministers signing off money for one another's own constituencies. 42 Secondly, tackling regional inequality does not necessarily reduce other inequalities, such as the economic differences between individuals, or intersectional inequalities based on gender, race, age, sexuality and disability. Indeed, a regionally equal country is perfectly compatible with stark economic and social inequalities. Therefore, with the levellingup agenda, the Conservative Party is able to stand against inequality, and thus speak to social democrats, without committing itself to redistributing wealth among individuals or to tackling intersectional structural disadvantage.
Thirdly, despite the shift towards a greater role for the state, the levelling-up agenda simultaneously contains a commitment to economic liberalism and the 'dry' economics of Thatcherism. In this strand, levelling up is not cast as an end in itself but as a means to a stronger free market economy, so the Conservatives seek to invest in 'public services and infrastructure, not just because they are good things in themselves, but because they are the bedrock of a dynamic free market economy'. 43 Therefore, levelling up is cast as a step towards a free market economy in which all areas of the country are given the foundations necessary to realise an expanding private sector. This commitment to economic liberalism through major spending projects contrasts with the Cameron-Osborne austerity project of major spending cuts, but it retains the same ideological preference for the private sector and a market driven society.
While state spending is justified because of its positive implications for a free market economy, a free market economy is justified because of its positive implications for increased state spending, with Johnson arguing that 'there is only one way to pay for world class healthcare and outstanding infrastructure-and that is to foster and encourage the millions of British businesses, large and small, that create the wealth of the nation'. 44 As a key example of its commitment to economic liberalism, the government is pursuing a policy of establishing freeports, which will act as low-tax and lowregulation enclaves, mirroring the 'enterprise zones' created by the Thatcher governments in the 1980s. Depending on where they are eventually located, freeports offer a possible free market solution to regional inequality. However, while freeports may improve productivity, they are not a tool for addressing the unequal distribution of wealth and resources within regions. The government's claim that freeports support the most deprived is a good example of how the levelling-up agenda brings together different ideological traditions without overcoming the tensions between them.
Fourthly and finally, levelling up entails a commitment to one nation conservatism, a claim repeatedly made by Johnson during the 2019 general election campaign. The ultimate aim of a one nation approach is to prevent the social fractures that create space for radical politics from both the left and right, which in turn may undermine the traditional institutions, national identity and social continuity valued by a conservative ideology. In the British tradition, there have broadly been two applications of one nation conservatism: one relates to a socioeconomic one nation; the other to a political one nation.
The more substantive socioeconomic dimension, originating during the Disraeli governments of the nineteenth century, sought to improve social welfare to avoid the extreme inequalities that might lead to social upheaval. In the postwar era, this approach was revived with the Conservative Party's acceptance of the burgeoning welfare state and the full employment targets of Keynesian economics. While it remains unclear the extent to which Johnson's government will turn to social welfare provision and/or Keynesian economics, it is clear that the socioeconomic dimension of one nation conservatism is alive in the levelling-up agenda. By focussing on left-behind communities at a time of political polarisation, the Conservatives seek to improve place-based economic opportunities in order to counter the rise of radicalism on the left and the right. This strategic deployment of the levelling-up agenda, therefore, continues a tradition of socioeconomic one nation conservatism, which responds to political polarisation with paternalistic social and economic policies.
While this socioeconomic dimension distinguishes one nation conservatism from other conservative approaches, the central appeal to 'nation' has historically made the slogan an invaluable link to the conservative commitment to national continuity. With the levelling-up agenda and the explicit reference to one nation conservatism, it is clear that Johnson's government is appealing for national unity on at least three counts. Firstly, in the aftermath of the divisive Brexit referendum and political polarisation, levelling up offers a post-Brexit vision that promises greater national unity, and an interlinking of public spending with national pride. Secondly, in relation to the breakup of the nations of the UK, levelling up can be seen as an attempt to placate the growing calls for independence in Scotland and Wales, and the increased possibility of Irish reunification. Thirdly, in relation to the left-behind communities that are increasingly disconnected from the political and national centre, levelling up promises increased political representation at the regional level. All three can be understood as electoral calculations of the Conservative Party, but they are also broader attempts to realise a central tenet of conservative ideology: the defence of the nation, especially at a time when it appears to be fracturing.
As levelling up develops from a political slogan into a policy programme, it will become increasingly difficult to disguise and manage the tensions between these four ideological strands. Most prominently, the balancing of taxation and spending poses a major challenge. Levelling up will require huge increases in public spending, but the government has yet to outline a clear future plan for taxation. While increased borrowing allows for a shortterm 'best of both worlds', the longer term will force the government into a choice between social democratic tax rises and economic liberal spending cuts. A related tension arises on the question of state planning, which comes about partly because of the increased commitment to infrastructure spending, but primarily because infrastructure spending will be used to address regional inequalities rather than following the flows of the market. Planning infrastructure spending to achieve regional regeneration requires a great deal more state involvement than spending on the basis of cost-benefit metrics.
Another tension arises with a social liberal commitment to creating equality of opportunity