A fundamental challenge in addressing extremism in the UK lies beyond direct security measures—it resides in the fabric of local communities themselves. The erosion of communal spaces and the decline of high streets are symptomatic of a deeper political and social malaise that fosters distrust and division. Nick Garland, an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), highlights how the shrinking of shared social infrastructure coincides with a rise in political extremism, particularly from the radical right.

Garland points to the sustained impact of post-2010 austerity policies, which have led to widespread closures of shops, pubs, libraries, community hubs, and children’s centres—already weakened by decades of deindustrialisation and the diminishing power of local government. These changes have intensified a sense of disempowerment and erosion of agency felt by many outside London, where political trust is notably more fragile. Yet, despite this, local bonds remain relatively strong; people generally harbour positive feelings towards their neighbours and immediate communities.

The link between social infrastructure and extremism is underscored by sociologist Sacha Hilhorst’s work, which finds that as youth clubs and community halls close and public spaces are privatised, individuals increasingly retreat into isolation and online echo chambers fertile for misinformation, division, and radicalisation. This echoes broader concerns raised by government officials and commentators about the complexities of tackling extremism, which require not only enforcement and regulation but also grassroots engagement and renewal of social capital.

The government has initiated steps to address these deficiencies. The Plan for Neighbourhoods, announced in March by the Deputy Prime Minister and backed by additional funding in the Chancellor’s spending review, represents an attempt to revitalise community-led initiatives. However, the success of such programmes remains uncertain given the ongoing fiscal pressures facing local authorities and the uneven economic geography of the UK. Restoring vibrant local infrastructure cannot be centrally mandated—it requires genuine empowerment of communities themselves, supported but not directed by Whitehall.

Echoing these observed challenges, former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg emphasises the importance of unity across diverse communities in combating extremism at the local level, particularly in London. His call for inter-faith cooperation and government backing of grassroots efforts aligns with Garland’s argument that strengthening social cohesion is inseparable from fighting radical politics. Similarly, government speeches reiterate the critical role of education, media responsibility, and international cooperation in a comprehensive anti-extremism strategy. For instance, education campaigns aimed at equipping young people with resilience against extremist ideologies, and media oversight to prevent inadvertent promotion of extremist content, are key pillars in the broader response.

The complexity of extremism requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond banning orders or surveillance laws. Community resilience and revitalised public spaces form the foundation upon which trust and mutual understanding can flourish. Without addressing the tangible decline in shared social infrastructure—those everyday places where people meet, connect, and build bonds—efforts to combat extremism will remain incomplete. Garland concludes that while the government recognises these challenges, repairing the social contact that underpins healthy politics is a demanding task that must unfold from the ground up.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services