Election Aftermath

As many countries in the EU swing rightwards, Britain has a new left-wing government with an eye-watering majority of 412 out of 650 seats. The Conservatives have clung on to a mere 121 seats. A flawed Brexit, income-crushing levels of taxation and inflation, and a surge in immigration meant that the electorate was in no forgiving mood. There are other salient, long-term features that stand out from this election.

The Conservatives lost a significant number of votes to the Reform party, which accrued 14% of the vote. Reform’s popularity is not matched by the fact that only five Reform MPs were installed in Parliament, but that is the consequence of the First-past-the-post voting system. Proportional representation would have yielded many more Reform MPs. It is noteworthy that Reform managed to pull off its success despite a rudimentary party machine. The leader, Nigel Farage, much explains this. His verbal fluency, his common sense approach to immigration and his readiness to answer journalists’ questions rather than prevaricate, make him very attractive to people who can no longer tolerate Sunak and Starmer’s PR-polished performances.

Now that Reform has established itself, the Tories face difficult questions around their identity. Will they heal the longstanding divide between Remainers and Brexiteers? If the former pro-Europe Tory vote has turned to the Liberal Democrats, whose success in gaining 72 seats suggests is the case, it may be possible for the Conservatives to present themselves as a Brexit party which could lure voters back from Reform. Will they remain the neo-liberal party that is soft on Woke that they became under David Cameron’s influence, or will they return to a more traditional Toryism that is socially conservative, deeply patriotic, and which encourages the best elements of capitalism while mitigating the worst? By doing the latter, they will revive the working class Conservative vote that brought Johnson to power. If the Conservatives can pull this off, their base of support might be smaller, but they can avert being eclipsed by Reform.

There is more good news for anyone inclined to the political right. Starmer’s Labour Party won fewer votes in absolute terms than magic grandpa Jeremy Corbyn managed in 2017 and 2019. This fact and the low turnout in 2024 suggest that the Labour Party, despite its huge parliamentary majority, has not experienced a swing of support. Starmer and Co have come to power because many Conservative voters gave their support to Reform and the Liberal Democrats, or refused to vote because of a disillusionment with politics. The election was more about getting the Tories out than ensuring Labour got in.

There is more bad news for Starmer. If the Conservatives have a challenge in reconciling their right and left wings, so too does Labour. A not insignificant number of longstanding Labour voters defected to Reform. The far-left, incensed at Corbyn’s expulsion from the party, voted for him and ensured that he retained his Islington North seat as an independent. Other far-leftists voted for the Green Party.

As if that were not bad enough, Starmer’s rightful anti-Hamas stance has caused four constituencies with large numbers of Muslim voters to vote for pro-Palestinian independents. But how long these agitators-cum-MPs will last is another matter. Being an MP has never been about single-issue advocacy; it is also about solving the local problems of one’s constituents and voting on national policies. If these MPs emphasise Gaza at the expense of representing their constituents and their country, they may find themselves out of power at the next election.

What now for Britain? With the SNP reduced to a 9 seat rump, Scottish independence has been buried for at least another five years. On the other hand, with Sinn Fein in the ascendancy, a referendum over Northern Ireland’s future is more likely. Whether the Northern Irish people will vote for unification with Ireland is not a certainty. As the SNP discovered to its frustration, a nationalist government does not necessarily translate into referendum success. It is possible that Starmer’s regime will be less radical than expected, though that is by no means at all likely. He knows he is in power, not because of an eruption of enthusiasm for his party, but because of disgust with its former incumbents, and cognisant of the fate of the ultra-woke SNP, he may well tone down his progressive policies. The electorate’s profound concern over record-breaking immigration and their willingness to punish parties for not solving the problem means Starmer must bring immigration levels down. For inspiration, he could look to Denmark’s centre-left Social Democrat party which has worked hard to reduce immigration. 

After spectacularly high taxation and inflation levels, Rachel Reeves has already emphasised the need for fiscal responsibility. All of this means Labour going against its political and socio-economic instincts, and much of what it has promised in its manifesto. As Starmer is a pragmatist, this could happen. On the other hand, pressure from within his party could ensure he is faithful to much of what is in the manifesto – which has many worrying things in it, such as the strengthening of transphobic hate crime laws. Starmer therefore has a tightrope stunt to perform: satisfying both a radical party and a naturally conservative electorate. How well he does this will determine whether he gets a crack at a second term.

Peter Harris is the author of two books, The Rage Against the Light: Why Christopher Hitchens Was Wrong (2019) and Do You Believe It? A Guide to a Reasonable Christian Faith (2020).

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!

Please follow and like us: