Election Politics: UK’s General Election 2024 - What Did it Really Tell Us ?

 

Now that the dust has settled on the election result, it’s worth taking some time to reflect on what the 2024 UK General Election results actually tell us about the way the electorate feel about politics in general, and the individual parties in particular.

Although by polling day a change of government was pretty much a foregone conclusion, and we’re all no doubt relieved that the electioneering is finally all over, a look at the results may give us some valuable indicators as to what we should expect to happen in the next 10 years or so.

First, let’s take a look at the overall voting statistics for each major party, and compare these with the results for 2019:

UK General Elections: 2019 vs 2024
	2019	2019	2024	2024
Party	%Votes cast	Seats won	%Votes cast	Seats won
Conservative	43.6	365	23.7	121
Labour	32.2	203	33.7	412
LibDem	11.5	11	12.2	72
Reform	NA	NA	14.3	5
SNP	7.4	48	2.5	9
Other	3.6	23	13.6	31
Turnout (%)	67.3		60

 

This rather revealing table points out an obvious problem with our ‘first past the post’ (FPP) voting system – it does not provide fair representation of the electorate’s voting preferences as a whole, as judged by total votes cast. I’ve highlighted the major changes that might be considered most conflicting in red.

Labour more than doubled their share of seats, while only increasing their share of the vote by 1.5 percentage points; the Tories lost more than two thirds of their seats while still polling nearly a quarter of the total votes. Interestingly, the LibDems, who are normally strong advocates of Proportional Representation (PR), were actually the real beneficiaries of FPP in terms of seat numbers in this election, achieving a more than 6-fold increase in their tally. This was largely on the back of the defection of disillusioned Tory voters, though, rather than a seed change in their popularity per se, and may well not be maintained in future polls. 

Reform on the other hand, with 14% of the total vote, exceeding the LibDems’ share by some margin, only managed to secure 4 seats, despite also coming in second place in many of  the contests where their candidates stood. The Greens, with a  much lower vote share managed to nab 3 more seats.

So much for the fairness of our FPP system – I’ve presented  the arguments for and against changing this in a previous blog (see this link for more details).

What, if anything, do the results tell us about the real wishes of the electorate  ?

The primary driver of this election result was, without a doubt, disillusionment with the Tories’ performance, and the perceived state of the country after 14 years of Conservative rule. In that respect, it probably did achieve success.

No other explanation could possibly result in conversion of  Boris’s 80-seat majority over Corbyn in 2019 to a Labour overall majority of 179, with 412 of the 650+ seats, in 2024. It also indicates we are in a period of much wider swings of voting intention and behaviour, with voter 'loyalty' rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

Admittedly the 2019  government were dealt one of the worst hands of cards in living memory, with the Covid pandemic in early 2020, closely followed by Putin’s Ukraine invasion in 2022 and its consequences, including a full-blown cost-of-living crisis. But their cumulative error record, particularly post-Boris, was so stark that a 'drubbing' this time round became a virtual certainty.

Looking more closely at the timeline of this downfall, the turning point for the Tories seemed to come in mid-2022. Their management of the pandemic was mixed, but did result in an available approved vaccine far more quickly than expected, providing them with a popularity boost. Starmer's Labour hit a particularly bad patch in mid 2021, and he even considered resigning the leadership at that point. His Tory rivals meanwhile soldiered on under Boris, but then seemed to ‘lose the plot’ in 2022 by forcing yet another charismatic leader out, and replacing him with two disastrously unsuitable leaders in quick succession. 

This resulted in a raft of distinctly un-conservative policies under Sunak, including large and highly un-conservative tax hikes – the party will need to spend a considerable time in ‘political rehab’ learning how to be truly conservative again before they stand any chance of re-election. Sadly, they have ‘form’ for this type of strategic error, the most notable previous example being the forced demise of Thatcher in 1990, which gave rise to the eventual 1997 Blair landslide and 13 years of New Labour.

But what of Labour now ?

The party and its leadership undoubtedly benefitted hugely from the Tories downfall, engineered largely via the vehicle of FPP  and its proneness to large swings. But how popular are they really with the electorate ? The results suggest – well, not very….....

Why ?

One factor is the general unpopularity of politicians themselves, and the political system in general, but the malaise probably goes deeper than this. The main problem many doorstep canvassers reported encountering this time was a general feeling of powerlessness, with large areas feeling they had been 'forgotten' or 'left out' by the Westminster elite. There was also a worrying conviction in many that whatever government was in place would fail to make much impression on the major issues facing us in our everyday lives – i.e. NHS failings, the cost-of-living crisis, low wages, high taxes, etc.,etc. 

Most notably, the electorate believe that there is nothing they can do about it – whatever party they elect will get to spend the next 5 years doing what they, not the electorate, want, particularly if elected with a sizeable working majority. 

This is indeed a swingeing indictment on out political system. Fortunately, there are ways of addressing this by changing our electoral system, and I've considered those in an earlier blog (see this link). Whether it will actually happen is another matter entirely, and I'm not hopeful.

To do him justice, so far Starmer did hit the ground running, but sadly the 'honeymoon' was quickly over.  He has inherited a wealth of problems, including a health service now on its knees, continuing cost-of living and housing crises, and the same simmering public sector and union discontent so ably stoked up by the previous government. These would be difficult problems for any government to tackle at the best of times, but with the exchequer virtually empty again, there will undoubtedly be economic problems ahead, particularly with public sector financing. His only hope is to increase productivity via "growth, growth and more growth" (now where have we heard that one before ?!). Only this will avoid the fatal spiral of increased taxes and borrowing that would eventually bankrupt us.

There are already signs of a potential conflict with the unions over so-called ‘restorative’ pay increases demanded by the BMA for the junior doctors, and more recently by the teaching unions. The perennial industrial action by the more militant unions still rife in the rail industry (and likely to continue) will also be a tough nut to crack – apart from the disastrous economic precedent settling all these disputes ‘in full’ would set, the sort of pay objective aims of ASLEF (up to £100k salary for an experienced train driver) would certainly not sit well with the majority of the working population on average salaries still no better than £30-£40k, and a historically high tax bill due to mantainance of Sunak's frozen tax thresholds.

Will the unions back down ? I suspect not – while they realised the Tories would never ‘cave in’ on ideological grounds, the advent of a government whose party is actually largely funded by the trade unions, with a relatively weak leader who has shown himself ready to back down under pressure on numerous occasions, will probably encourage them to push for everything they can get. And one can’t really blame them, given that their role is to look after their members exclusively, not the interests of the country as a whole.

There is even more serious stuff to come for the leadership than this, though.

The real and existential threat that Starmer faces during the next year or so, and one which surprisingly hasn’t been much discussed in the media, is whether or not he can stave off the efforts of the hard left to regain control of the party. 

Make no mistake, this affects us all – an outright Momentum 'coup', followed by a Rayner government with its inevitable ideology-driven high tax and spend policies would be a disaster – both economically and politically, and apart from anything else, would make us the laughing stock of Europe. And now we have given Labour an unassailable majority, there would be very little we could do about it – for the next 5 years at least, thanks to Cameron’s ill-advised electoral reforms of the 2010s.

How likely is all this to come to fruition ? Starmer would have us believe that he has rooted out all trace of the hard left since Corbyn’s 2019 debacle, and he may indeed actually be convinced of this himself.

The fact is that he hasn’t – we saw hard evidence of this a month or so before the election with the ‘Abbott affair’ as some have already called it. In June, a week or so before the candidate submission deadline, Starmer attempted to carry out a behind the scenes candidate list purge in attempt to ‘finish the job’ as he saw it, of removing all trace of hard left influence from his potential back-bench MP cohort.

Momentum, having got wind of this, quickly staged a protest through Diane Abbot, which was backed by Rayner and the union leadership. Realising he had been caught ‘over a barrel’, Starmer quickly backed down so as not to frighten the horses so close to polling day, and the list remained relatively unscathed. The whole incident was quickly hushed up and disappeared from the media within a day or two. Its legacy remains, however. Of the 412 MPs he now has under his ‘control’, how many of these will still harbour left-leaning tendencies and effectively become ‘sleepers’ for Momentum ? Quite a few, I suspect….

My guess is that the hard left element will wait until the honeymoon period is well and truly over, and public disillusionment over Starmer’s failure to achieve his manifesto promises has properly set in (ca mid-2025). Reeves’s Autumn statement may provoke some earlier back-bench dissent if it involves significant further tax-rises at the low end of the income scale against manifesto promises, but failure to settle existing labour disputes to the electorate's satisfaction, or to make any improvement in Health Service or social housing provision by mid-2025 would be a more likely trigger sequence. 

Perhaps a more likely outcome, and one that now appears to be happening,  would be Starmer and Reeves simply caving in to union demands for the sake of keeping themselves 'in charge'. We can see such an arrangement already starting to appear with Reeves' recent statement that she is '..minded to award teachers and health workers an above inflation payrise..' She needs to beware that this will undoubtedly 'open the floodgates' for the rest of the public sector unions. Any attempt at satisfying the whole sector thereafter or the sake of a 'quiet life' can have only one result - un-costed borrowing, significant cuts to benefits, and substantial unplanned tax rises - a toxic combination indeed, given recent experience. The irony of it is that, having already obtained the supra-inflationary pay increase they wanted, ASLEF are now striking over working practices. No doubt the junior doctors will do the same, as will any of the other public sector unions who feel dissatisfied with their members' lot.

Starmer's aggressive stand against the 7 rebels in the Child Benefit cap vote in July, depriving them of the whip for a full 6 months, is a hopeful sign, both in providing a firm  example to other potential dissenters, and in 'weeding out' the worst offenders in the hard left camp. It could however backfire if it encourages more left-wingers to rebel in future controversial votes.

Given that we are now firmly ‘stuck with’ Labour for the duration, whatever our political persuasions, we can only hope that things ‘go Starmer's way’ without major trauma between now and then, and that his desire to see the country right under his leadership gives him enough ammunition and strength of character to continue standing firm. The battle, as they say, is on..... 

And what of the minority parties ? 

The LibDems certainly staged an impressive revival in their fortunes, spurred on in no small measure by their leader’s daredevil antics in the run up to the election. However, given the size of Labour’s majority this time, the LibDems are likely to have far less influence on policy-making than they did during the 2010-15 government, or indeed on the 2017-19 one. 

As the third party in what is an effectively almost always 2-party contest, their fortunes and numbers would also be expected to wax and wane far more than the 2 major parties, so they should ‘make hay while the sun shines’. Their principal objective in this parliament should be to press for some form of PR inroads on the basis of perceived election unfairness, and inconsistency with devolved government systems in the 3 other home nations. No other election result, has shown the need for reform more clearly. Sadly, though,  they will have very little chance of success with this, given that both of the major parties will want to ensure that FPP stays firmly in place. If the electorate remains as volatile and disillusioned as it is now, they may fall prey to another 2019-style virtual wipeout in 2029.

Reform UK, on the other hand, merits watching closely – as the ‘new kid on the block’ with a charismatic leader, and strengthened by the immigration issue, increasing European popularism, and the Brexit legacy, Reform could well gain in strength and appeal over the next few years, particularly if Labour’s fortunes hit the buffers as predicted.

Having effectively destroyed his arch-rivals, the Conservatives, 'at a stroke' on July 4th by stealing a large slice of their potential vote share,  Farage is ‘on a roll’ and fully intends to replace them as the effective opposition. He is also committed to 'shaking things up' and challenging Labour at every opportunity. To make any headway with either objective, though, he will need to weed out any extreme right tendencies within the party in order to ensure his success and credibility as party leader. The recent riots and their attribution to the far right won't have helped with this.

The election results did notably show a marked disillusionment with all 3 ‘conventional’ parties, which undoubtedly have bolstered his share of the vote. Although we can’t say for certain how many votes Farage actually ‘stole’ from the Tories, the fact that his party came second in a large number of constituencies, and took a whopping 14% of the total national vote, suggests he was largely responsible for the size, if not the actuality, of the Tories virtual wipeout. The fact that he only got 4 seats for his 14% share is yet another indictment against FPP. Whether he would have done so well if the Tories had not been so unpopular is another question, which may be answered in 2029, if not beforehand. 

In summary, the key points of note in the results of the election were:

1.       * A virtual Tory wipeout on the back of their perceived incompetence and unpopularity. Their downfall was rapid after early 2022, and stemmed from their removal of Boris and their subsequent disastrous decline under Truss and then Sunak.

2.       * A landslide majority for Labour, engineered largely by tactical voting and the effect of Farage’s last-minute takeover of the Reform leadership. The SNP collapse in Scotland added a valuable extra boost to Labour's majority, but this wasn’t decisive overall.

3.       * Strong evidence of misrepresentation of the voting preferences of the electorate – although Labour were seen as potential ‘saviours’ of UK’s fortunes by many, and arguably the country's first choice for a replacement for the Tories, the total voting figures would indicate that a much broader coalition of parties in government would be a fairer representation of the electorate’s wishes. The turnout of only 60%, the lowest since 2001, is also worrying for the health of our democracy, and indicates all is not well.

4.       * A steep downturn in the fortunes of the Scottish Nationalists – this was probably again a result of a long continuous spell in charge of a devolved government, coupled with a worsening of economic fortunes, rather than an overt about-turn away from Scottish independence. That said, the Scots are a ‘canny’ lot when it comes to finance,  and must realise the economic difficulties they would land themselves in by forsaking the ‘umbrella’ of the Bank of England…and the Pound Sterling. This mirrors the downturn in the fortunes of Welsh Labour, who likewise have presided over a decline in fortunes for a number of years.

What of the Future ?

We’ve already discussed the existential threat to Starmer’s Labour posed by the hard left. Only time will tell  whether this particular prophecy will actually ever materialise.

The Tories are in for at least 5 years in the wilderness, and probably won’t be ready for government again until 2034, such was their collapse in popularity and their record of proven incompetence after Boris’ removal. They need, above all else, to learn how to be true conservatives in the modern world again – and to learn to control their urge to bring down any leader who has the temerity to show even an ounce of charisma. 

All this will take time, and they know it. In the meantime as the second largest party, they do still have a responsibility to act as an effective opposition, and they should replace Sunak with a more effective leader promptly before the Autumn sets in, and get on with the job. 

Any thoughts of amalgamation with Reform UK would be a disaster for the party, and should be quickly consigned to the dustbin of political history.

The Lib Dems will no doubt bask in their new found success for a while (pray god, with no more stunts from their leader!), but will probably make little impression on government policy, given the size of Labour’s majority. That said, if the left wing 'rump' of the new Labour back-benchers start to ‘get bolshie’ with Starmer over labour disputes, and enough of them decide to defy the whips and vote against their own government on specific issues, the Lib Dems' 72 votes could become decisive. 

Will Labour live up to its manifesto promises ? 

In a word, no – no party ever does, and we would be naïve to expect it. Manifestos are, after all, just statements of intent. As already discussed, the exchequer is virtually empty, and it’s almost inconceivable that Reeves will pull a ‘super-rabbit' out of the hat by securing the immediate large-scale increases in inward private investment that are needed to promote growth; this is the only way she would be able to avoid significant increases in the 3 main sources of revenue: Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT, and we are likely to see these sooner rather than later if she and Starmer continue to cave in to public sector union demands.

As discussed, Starmer has a particularly difficult hand of cards to play going forward – the difference between his and the Tories’ 2019 'hand' is that the problems this time are largely known, rather than yet to emerge.

His best bet will be to concentrate on problems he can make an impression on relatively quickly, rather than bowing to the temptation of trying to solve everything at once. He must, above all else, do this with verifiable financial prudence – the Markets will be watching very closely. He does have some useful economic ‘pulling power’ just now in that he probably has the most stable government in Europe, and he should use this to advantage to attract inward investment to fuel much-needed growth. This will not have escaped the attention of his chancellor, with her economic background, and we should expect to see an emphasis on controlled growth in the Autumn statement. Let’s hope the country’s finances and 'pulling-power' are up to it. Above all else, Starmer must resist the 'attentions' of the left if he is to retain enough credibility for a second term. He must also ensure his ministers do not alienate key groups within the electorate, particularly his 10 million pensioners, who have long memories...and who always vote.

To be updated in due course – watch this space….

Update 30.7.24: Well, that didn't take long, did it ?.....in her statement to the commons yesterday, Rachel Reeves showed her stance on a number of things, including pensioners...the effective abolition of the winter fuel payment to all but the most deprived will leave many of our elderly struggling with bills again this winter, and faced with the invidious choice of 'heat or eat'. We always knew the new Labour regime were likely to be 'anti-pensioner' and now we have the first concrete evidence of it.

And this is only the first salvo in her 'war against pensioners' as it's now being called on social media - there's plenty more shocks to come for pensioners, and their offspring - see recent blog to find out what these are likely to be...and what you can do about it. 

Make no mistake, if you're a pensioner or someone close to retirement and not on means-tested benefits, Rachel is coming for you....and yours.

Update 17.9.24:

What a difference a month makes....Starmer and Reeves are now well on their way to becoming the most hated politicians in Europe (and that includes the far right!). Not only have they effectively declared war on the  majority of their pensioner population by standing obdurate on the Winter Fuel Payment issue, (see link here for more details on this) but they are now threatening to remove other universal pensioner benefits as part of the Autumn Statement. Twitter and Facebook are already awash with hate rhetoric against them, and not just from the over 66s - even the unions are getting restive about their decidedly un-socialist behaviour. The leadership seem to be either oblivious to, or just plain dismissive of, the electorate's views. 

Just what you might expect for a government with a huge majority at the start of a 5-year term, I guess. What on earth have we done??!!.

First Published 16.7.24