A Labour landslide has now been confirmed. Sir Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Conservatives have suffered their worst-ever performance with a record number of Portillo moments. Liz Truss, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Penny Mordaunt and Grant Shapps have all lost their seats. The results represent a tremendous change in British politics.
The Conservatives, however, dug their own grave long before the election was called. A successful campaign ought to appeal to its achievements. Yet any instance of the campaign attempting to do so is refutable. Sunak tried to appeal to his days as Chancellor when he introduced the furlough or Eat Out to Help Out scheme. But the British memory of the Conservative government during the pandemic is just Partygate — something that Sunak received a penalty over.
Sunak’s decision to call the election early made their policy proposals far less compelling — they are the incumbents after all. The Rwanda policy, the Tories’ earmark immigration plan, was never going to take off, entirely undermining its purpose as a deterrent. The smoking ban, a policy that might have been one of the few positive aspects of Sunak’s legacy, was axed the second parliament was dissolved. Likewise, cuts to national insurance seemed unlikely (and unwise) because of repeated warnings from the IMF.
All of which begged the question: If you were so convinced by these policies, if you knew planes were going to take off, why not see them off?
Even the campaign itself lacked the guile and integrity you’d expect. Sunak called the election in the rain. In the debates, Sunak performed better than Starmer, but their indefensible record often left him exposed. And then the betting scandals, or the fact he left D-day early — or the momentous resignations of Michael Gove or Dame Andrea Leadsom the day the election was called.
In terms of political messaging, I have never seen a British campaign so fraught with half-truths and sometimes outright lies. Sunak claimed that the Treasury estimated the cost of Labour policies, amounting to a £2,000 tax rise. On X, formerly Twitter, the Tory campaign produced these strange videos that’d warn of the dangers of a Labour government. One, for example, showed a red carpet being rolled out to sea for asylum seekers and migrants. For a man who was supposed to lead with integrity, his campaign seemed to hold very little of it.
But more importantly, I think, the Conservative’s broad church mantra finally ripped them apart. Their constant eagerness to appease the Red Wall, drawing them further to the right, distanced themselves from some of their core voters in the South East. Yet at the same time, they didn’t go far enough to appeal to voters who have now largely defected to Reform. The party was torn apart by the moderates and the far-right, leaving him stuck somewhere in the middle, unsure of where to direct their manpower. Starmer, Sir Ed Davey and Nigel Farage all capitalised on this — and remarkably so.
Labour now have a majority of 174 — a number that traditionally would indicate resounding joy and excitement about Starmer’s premiership, but it is quite the contrary. According to YouGov, only 22% hold a positive opinion of Starmer, whilst 66% of people dislike him. The election was a matter of removing the Conservative government. For many, the Labour Party was the next best choice, despite any real mention of policy or vision.
But I think, despite this, Starmer deserves huge credit. The task at hand was monumental, yet he delivered. The Labour Party under its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was unelectable. They now are the first Labour government in 14 years.
It even handled the few crises it had. The Dianne Abbott row was handled fairly comfortably. Although many of the left are not pleased with the purge of left-wing candidates. On the war in Gaza, it did lose some momentum and credibility, particularly with Muslim voters. Although it did win back Rochdale from George Galloway.
But the overall mood surrounding the campaign, I feel, is a real lack of mature policy discussion, perhaps partly due to the format of the debates. Sunak and Starmer were often just very accusatory and inflammatory, with neither of them trying to rationally debate, but instead searching for one-liners that’d be gobbled up by the media. Even when given the chance to deliver policy ideas, I found Starmer, despite his barrister background, to be particularly tedious and rambling. Sunak, on the other hand, often delivered the message but could come across as unemotive and cold, lacking the ability to connect with audience members.
Ed Davey, the leader of the Lib Dems, I’d say performed better than Sunak in connecting with the voters. His tour around the country produced some memorable moments. Take the moment he bungee jumped to try to create a bounce in the polls through tactical voting. On other issues such as social care, Davey produced campaign material recalling his own experiences to deliver on authenticity. But the fact that Davey spinning in a teacup or falling in a lake is more memorable than genuine policy is telling.
Then there is Reform. According to YouGov, Farage is by far the most popular UK public figure with 33% of people holding a positive opinion. Reform, who achieved four seats in Parliament and 14% of the vote share, have seen a resurgence since Farage returned as their leader. The sheer power of Farage’s personality has afforded him a Trump-like reputation, with many voters, such as those in his new seat Clacton, describing him as some truth-telling messiah. This unprecedented success is despite numerous scandals, such as one candidate who argued women are subsidised by men to even exist or even Farage’s praise of Putin.
The media simply made this worse. I could probably even make the case that is responsible for increasingly immature and unserious campaigns. We are in an age where soundbites and now even memes are prevalent. The Labour Party's Instagram has produced many memes, using trends and satire to attack the Tories. There is a worrying absence of real policy discussion. I have a funny feeling that if you were to ask many Labour voters about their favourite policy, they wouldn’t know one or be convinced by any. The media has allowed this new delivery of politics, where policy and proper scrutiny are absent.
But perhaps the new media failure is its constant obsession with the polls. The day before the election, campaigners and activists were not talking about policy. Instead, they were talking about the Labour ‘supermajority’ over and over. The election was seen as a foregone conclusion. Even in the debates, Sunak treated Starmer as if he were the PM, appearing as if he was in opposition.
Current estimates place turnout as below 60%, a significant drop from the previous election. Partly, I think this has to do with the polling obsession. Many, perhaps more than ever, felt their vote to be worthless. If you are a Labour voter, in a Labour-safe seat, then you may already feel inconsequential and the constant barrage of a Labour supermajority only increased apathy further. Hull East, for example, a Labour safe-seat, saw a turnout of only 42.3%.
I wonder what turnout would have been had the result not been well predicted and known. I guess it would have been higher, particularly for the type of voter I just described. Perhaps there is a case to be made for the use of polls to be limited. This is for the sake of turnout, which is something that has traditionally been affected by polls, and the debates themselves which became all about the supermajority.
Many think that this election was dull and drab, but in the wake of the election, the political landscape has shifted. Labour’s victory marks a new chapter — one marred by a lack of widespread enthusiasm for Starmer. The Conservative performance signals a dire need for introspection and recalibration, torn apart by internal strife. The resurgence of the Liberal Democrats and Reform highlights a diversifying political spectrum, where voters increasingly seek alternatives to traditional powerhouses.
The real challenge now lies in rebuilding public trust and fostering a political discourse centred on policy rather than sensationalist soundbites. The era of mature, rational debate seems distant, but its revival is essential for truly representative and effective governance.
The next election, with Labour now as incumbents, will hopefully be marked by radical and impressive policy with credible opposition. The Conservative Party, as it stands, is in ruin. Perhaps Reform or the Lib Dems will step up. But regardless of who is in opposition, they will undoubtedly have the thankless task of scrutinising the government.
A truly effective opposition must communicate a new sense of radicalism and maturity to even begin to make a dent into the sizeable Labour majority.
Image: Number 10
Comments