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

 

Now that the dust has long since settled on the election result, it’s worth taking some time to reflect on what the 2024 UK General Election results actually told 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 were all no doubt heartily relieved that the electioneering was finally all over, a look back 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 highlights 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 particular 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 is not likely to 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. The fact that Reform has since gained as many new MPs from the Tories ranks since the election shows us how much of a mismatch there was between FPP seats gained and the electorates wishes.

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 the 2024 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. The other notable change is that we are now 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 Tory 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. The pendulum effect (described in the blog I referred to above) whereby governments are in practice limted to a maximum of 2-3 5-year terms, didn't help their prospects either.

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 temporary 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 completely ‘lose the plot’ in 2022 by forcing yet another charismatic leader out, and replacing him with two disastrously unsuitable leaders in quick succession. This was in retrospect their 'waterloo' and more or less guaranteed a Starmer victory in 2024

Under Sunak's leadership, this change of tack resulted in a raft of distinctly un-conservative policies , including large and highly un-conservative tax hikes and a much-hated 'stealth' tax in the form of the freeze on tax thresholds which Reeves has now gleefully extended – 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 thereafter.

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 at all….....and still getting worse.

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, Starmer did hit the ground running as soon as he took office, but sadly the 'honeymoon' was quickly over....5 days in, to be precise. His attack on the pensioners over WFP is now the 'stuff of legend', and will go down in history as the biggest and fastest terminal error a government has ever made.  

He inherited a wealth of problems from the Tories, some of which did appear to be deliberately engineered, 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 once again, the economic problems that lay ahead were likely to prove stubborn, 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 that would have avoided the fatal spiral of increased taxes and borrowing that actually ensued, and may still eventually bankrupt us.

One of the first challenges Labour faced was 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) was also simmering beneath the surface and could re-erupt at any time. Starmer made the mistake of attempting to 'pay off' the public sector unions, including the BMA by giving them super-inflationary pay increses, while hammering private industry with sequential tax increases. The disastrous economic precedent settling all these disputes ‘in full' set, with ASLEF drivers at the forefront (up to £100k salary for an experienced train driver) certainly did 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.

And did that buy Starmer peace with the unions ? I'll leave the reader to answer that one...suffice it to say that 15 stoppages later the BMA are still 'rarin' to go, and no doubt strive to bring the NHS to its knees if given the chance. Will the unions ever 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. He has lost virtually all his crediblity as a leader, and has shown a vindictive streak a  mile wide against any and all groups in the population he feels don't support him. The Mandelson scandal rumbles on, and may yet unseat him, but his real waterloo will come on May 8th with the local election results. these are widely expected to be a complete disaster for Labour, with the loss of most, if not all of the local councils they still hold. If he does survive this, it will only be because no one wants the job of trying to pick up the pieces....

Make no mistake, this prospective change 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 that 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 – keen eyed political observers at the time will have noticed some hard evidence of this a month or so before the election with the ‘Abbott affair’ as some called it. In June 2024, 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, if back-bench rebellions since then over numerous issues are anything to go by….

My guess is that the hard left element will wait until after May 7th and pick at time when both party and public disillusionment over Starmer’s failure to achieve his manifesto promises is at a maximum.

Given that we are now firmly ‘stuck with’ Labour for the duration (i.e. 3 more glorious years!), whatever our political persuasions, we can only hope that the 'new left' avoid wrecking the economy completely and manage to keep the cost of living sufficiently under control for us to cary on 'eating and heating' ‘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 continue to gain in strength and appeal over the next two 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. Last years' riots surrounding immigration 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. 

The Greens have also staged something of a revival, winning key by elections and electing a charismatic young leader. Their seat numbers are likely to remain low under FPP, and I susect few would be happy electing a Green government sworn to abandon the nuclear deterrent - particularly in the light of recent Geopolitical events !

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. We mat well see a hung parliament in 2029 as a result of this trend. 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. Their fortunes at the 2026 Holyrood election should be quite revealing, with Scotland still hopeflessly split on the independence question.

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 3 more 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 their replacement Sunak with a more effective leader promptly was an obvious and laudable first step.

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 between now and 2029!), but will probably make little impression on government policy, given the size of Labour’s majority. That said, they can provide a useful supporting role to the left wing 'rump' of the new Labour back-benchers against any new Starmer policy gaffes, when 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 still 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; she would only have been able to do this by encouraging private industry, since they are the only effective wealth creators we have. Instead she hit them hard in the pocket in two successive budgets to satisfy her obsession with her own 'fiscal rules...and pay off the public sector unions. This has caused many of our long-standing SMEs to fail and frightened away any inward investment.

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 would have been to concentrate on problems he could make an impression on relatively quickly, rather than bowing to the temptation of trying to solve everything at once. History has shown us what actually happened, and what has set him up for an inevitable fall from grace with his party. Even if he did by some means manage to cling onto his post until 2029, the electorate would mete out its punishment quickly and decisively, virtually obliterating his party at a stroke. The party faithful will no doubt be hoping he goes quietly, and well before this happens. The pensioner population, (particularly those who have just had to declare themselves ineligible for their winter fuel payment on their Self-Assessment returns!) would no doubt love him to stay in place, so that they can contribute personally to his downfall at the ballot box...a second time.

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

First Published 16.7.24; revised 23.4.26