I went to bed on Thursday expecting to wake up in the People’s Republic of Faragia.
That didn’t happen. Firstly, the count didn’t start until 9am and secondly, the Tories won the most seats. When the dust settled, in my target seat (although not a top target), it hadn’t even been that close.
Still, that minor wrinkle aside, Reform had good local elections. A massive increase in council seats and councils, second in Wales, joint second in Scotland.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Greens had a good night too. Hundreds of new councilors and some new councils too, particularly in London.
Five party politics is here.
But both parties could have done better. Reform’s projected vote share fell compared to last year. On Peter Kellner’s guide to the elections, their seat total lies between “Disaster” and “Disappointment”. The Greens sit between “Disappointment” and “Relief”. Sky’s tame psephologists have them between “Good” and “OK”, while Reform are somewhere between “Good” and “Impressive” but a way off “Great”. As a result, despite the handwringing by MPs and the media, Labour and the Tories’ performance is somewhere between “OK” and “Bad” and “OK” and “Good” respectively. The latter even managed to increase their vote share. If the result were replicated at a General Election, we would be looking at a hung Parliament.
Our First-Past-The-Post system developed in a two-party world, first the Tories and the Liberals, then the Tories and Labour. And it has worked well. We know how to deal with it. But as we add more parties to the mix, it becomes more unstable. A typical constituency might be won 60:40. The Projected National Vote Share has Reform on 26%, the Greens on 18%, Labour and the Tories on 17% and the Lib Dems on 16%. As a result, it takes a far smaller change in votes to flip a constituency. Since the winner takes it all, taking 200 of your opponent’s votes, or just persuading 200 of their voters to stay at home might make the difference between success and failure.
The week before the election saw both challenger parties receive negative coverage. Reform never quite got on top of the question of Nigel Farage’s £5mn loan, while Zack Polanski’s response to the Golders Green stabbings marked him out as being somewhat outside the mainstream of British politics. And people noticed, his approval rating falling about 10% in the next week. As Labour campaigners found out to their cost, party leaders are just as much on the ballot paper as party candidates.
In a two party world, it might not matter much. The margins are generally sufficient that some bleed of vote-share can be experienced without making much difference to the overall result. In a five-party world, with a much tighter spread, it can make all the difference. As Sir John Curtice noted, the Greens were, certainly in the early stages of the count, very good at coming second or third, less good at actually winning. And British politics is not the sort of race in which there are medals for second place.
Making predictions about general elections from local elections is a mug’s game. The Projected National Vote Share in May 2024 would have resulted in a hung Parliament. The election in July 2024 very much did not. But they can give us an idea of the underlying contours of the system, and the incentives the parties will be operating under.
If the polling situation does not change much, there will be a large number of constituencies decided on very tight margins. And in those situations moving small numbers of votes will have an outsized impact on the overall result. If, as seems plausible from the recent results, negative stories can spark that movement, then parties will try to find them.
For voters are more persuadable than they were in the past. The expansion of the number of competitive parties shows that the electorate is less loyal than it used to be. Parties like Reform which were only founded a few years ago cannot, by definition, have “ancestral” voters who just tick the box their parents did. Faced with an array of plausible options, people often choose by elimination – finding reasons not to pick A, B or C, rather actively plumping for D. One party’s candidate said something unfortunate about a group in society, well, that knocks them out. Another’s has aggressive, if legal, tax arrangements. Can’t vote for them. Some dubious pictures from the past surface – we don’t want that sort in Parliament.
It doesn’t have to dissuade many people, but as long as such data drops dissuade some people, they may well be enough to flip a seat.
With such potentially high bang for the buck, it is reasonable to assume that attack politics will form an increasingly large amount of parties’ focus. Not, perhaps, in their own name – appearing statesmanlike is still a valuable asset – but through outriders. Polanski’s gaffe was self-generated, but Farage’s story appeared in the media. Friendly outlets are useful conduits for getting information into the public domain. The growing ecosystems of bloggers, podcasters and influencers offer another, quicker, deniable channel to spread a message without needing to negotiate traditional gatekeepers and micro-target the voters one wants to influence.
The next election is, probably, three years away. Three years for parties to gather information. Three years also for them to improve their vetting. But three years too for technology to improve. We can still, just about, tell AI images from real ones. Will that still be the case in 2029? Or will you “see” your local candidate on Facebook, slagging off your area and its residents? The Electoral Commission is aware of the issue but can only act retrospectively. If it only takes a few hundred votes, will that be enough?
Willie Horton is an infamous name in American politics. A criminal released by Mike Dukakis who went on to kill, the Republicans plastered him over the airwaves in 1988 to paint their opponent as soft on crime. Britain has traditionally seen itself as above such behaviour. But the logic of our new landscape is that it won’t be for long.
Stewart Slater works in Finance. He is now also on Substack, where you are welcome to follow him.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
By 2029, in my considered opinion, the world will have changed so much that politics and politicians will be the last thing we will worry about. Trust me on this – I have my sources…