by Jack Parbrook

By the 25^th of January 2025, there will have been a general election in the UK. Based on current polling it will be a decisive victory for the Labour party. The balance of power in The House of Commons could be entirely different to that of the past fourteen years. Why this is the most likely outcome, is worth investigating. 

 Fourteen years, two coalitions, and four leaders after David Cameron’s 2010 election victory the Conservatives remain the largest party in the Commons, with 349 of 650 MPs. The biggest obstacle to preserving their majority is widespread dissatisfaction with the legacy of 14 years of their governance. 

Withdrawing from the EU was always going to be divisive. The Tories managed to reduce its controversy, though not in the way they had hoped. According to recent polling, a mere 33% of Britons think that Britain was right to leave the EU, compared to the 52% who voted to leave the EU in 2016. Brexit also finished Cameron and Theresa May’s reigns. In the end Boris Johnson was the only leader capable of galvanising sufficient support for a deal and he led the party to an 80 seat majority in the 2019 election.  

Then COVID happened. Though an official inquiry into how the government handled COVID is still underway, many of the government’s failures are abundantly clear. Bungled PPE contracts, avoidable deaths in care homes, and children deprived of education to name but a few. At this point one could argue that the electorate should not be too harsh on the government. Of course, errors are inevitable when faced by a novel threat and with the swift development and deployment of vaccines the government allowed the UK to return to normality. Such arguments might have held water were it not for Partygate. Throughout 2021 and 2022 it emerged that as the public languished in lockdowns Bacchanalian revelry, under Johnson’s auspices, was underway in Number 10. The weight of this, combined with other scandals, rendered Johnson’s position untenable and he resigned in June 2022.  

 Liz Truss followed Johnson. Her tenure was a mere 45 days long. A mini-budget with over £45bn of unfunded tax cuts frightened financial markets. Government borrowing costs soared, the pound plummeted against the dollar, and the Bank of England had to spend almost £20bn buying gilts to prevent pension funds from going insolvent. Despite U-turns on the most controversial policies, and the firing of the Chancellor, Truss had stretched the trust of her party and her people too far, resigning in October 2022. 

Rishi Sunak, the current PM, replaced Truss. His time in Number 10 has had successes and failures. In January last year, he set out five promises, hoping to under-promise and over-deliver. He has arguably met two of them, seeing inflation halve and reducing the number of small boats crossing the channel when compared to last year. However, the NHS waiting list grows ever longer, the debt-to-GDP ratio has not shrunk, and the UK is in a recession.  

Perhaps his biggest problem is the appearance of weakness and desperation. At the time of writing, the Conservatives are consistently behind Labour by around 20% in the polls. Sunak’s attempts to improve this figure have not helped his cause.  

The Supreme Court ruled the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, which has cost 290 million pounds thus far, unlawful , with opponents to the plan across the ideological breadth of the Conservative party. That Sunak has yet to abandon this policy, despite the risk of losing a confrontation with his party, international courts and electorate does not inspire hope. He also suffers from upset regarding failed promises on legal migration. In 2010, the Tories promised to cut net migration down to tens of thousands. In 2016, some Tories argued Brexit would allow the UK to control its borders. Last year net migration was at a record high of 745,000. This is grim news for the Tories and the anti-immigration party Reform UK currently stand at over 10% in the polls, potentially splitting the vote in many constituencies. This leaves the Tories with little choice but to trot out platitudes about being tough on immigration. Voters, however, may not believe them this time.  

Sunak also wants to lower the tax burden, cutting National Insurance in both the Autumn Statement and Spring Budget. This may seem initially appealing, given that the tax burden is at its highest level as a percentage of GDP since the war (though many will argue the fact tax levels have reached this summit is hardly an endorsement of the government). However, the IMF has advised the UK to keep taxes high to facilitate investment in public services and Hunt wants to increase fiscal headroom to ensure the UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio falls over the next five years. Furthermore, the average voter is unlikely to be paying less tax than they were a few years ago, even after recent cuts. High levels of inflation, without adjustment to tax thresholds, are pulling voters into higher tax brackets. Anything other than substantial cuts or the indexation of thresholds to reflect inflation will be cold comfort to voters having taxes swallow a greater proportion of their incomes with no improvement in their living standards.  

This election will be challenging for the Tories. It is not difficult to portray the past fourteen years of Conservative government as a failure. Over five Prime Minister the Tories, have failed to develop public trust in both their competence and integrity. One need only to look at the appointment of (now Lord) Cameron as Foreign Secretary and his furthering of the Rwanda plan to doubt his decrying of this legacy and the “30-year status-quo”. Taxes are poised to reach their highest levels since the 1960s as a share of GDP, and the UK’s productivity has scarcely grown since the financial crisis. Perhaps the easiest way for the Conservatives to lose the next election is by asking their version of Ronald Reagan’s famous address when running for his second term as President: “Are you better off now than you were four[teen] years ago?” 

What about the main rival of the Conservatives? The Labour party currently have 196 MPs, after the electorate comprehensively rejected Jeremy Corbyn in 2019. The party then comprehensively rejected Corbyn, and Sir Keir Starmer took the throne. Sir Keir has endeavoured to profit from dissatisfaction with the Tories by attempting to remain uncontroversial, but also to keep the backing the Labour base. This had not been without difficulty.  

Take his handling of Palestine, which has proved a potent issue for party members, as an example. Many within his party have called for an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, Sir Keir mindful of the anti-Semitism allegations that marred Corbyn’s tenure, but also wishing not to alienate voters passionate about Palestine, initially refused to call for an immediate ceasefire, advocating for a recognised Palestinian state and a humanitarian pause. In November, he faced a rebellion of over 56 MPs and shadow cabinet resignations due to his handling of a ceasefire motion. In February, the party’s official position changed to supporting an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. On the 21^st of February, the SNP intended to use one of their opposition days to table a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire, which over 1000 Labour MPs were expected to support. This was in spite of Labour’s opposition to the wording of the motion and the extent to which it condemned Hamas. Fortunately, for Sir Keir, the Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle brought forward the vote on Labour’s amendments to before the vote on the SNP’s original motion, allowing the party and Sir Keir to save face. Such a breach of precedent sparked furore, with over 90 MPs signing a letter declaring their lack of confidence in Sir Lindsay. This is a problem for Labour, since it has been alleged that Labour threatened Sir Lindsay with removal after the election if he did not allow the Labour amendment to be debated before the SNP’s motion. Sir Keir may have been able to strengthen his position in the party by doing this, but it provides ammunition for the Tories to suggest that Labour sleaze may be no better than their own brand.   

Of course, Sir Keir is trying to keep the core of his party happy for a reason. Winning votes from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats is necessary for victory, but having a different core voter base allows him to pursue some popular polices unavailable to the Tories. On the issue of planning reform and building more infrastructure, the Tories are cautious. They are fearful of losing seats to the Liberal Democrats, who defeated the Tories in the Chesham and Amersham by-elections by appealing to NIMBYs. Labour, who do not have to target such seats need trouble themselves less and can appeal to younger generations by promising cheaper housing and economic growth via more investment in infrastructure and fewer restrictions on planning. Furthermore, Labour will have an easier time concocting their pension policy than the Tories. Since 2011, the state pension has risen with the higher of total pay growth, inflation or 2.5%. This has cost the government an additional £11bn per annum compared to a rise in line with prices or earnings, and an IFS estimate suggests it could make up 9% of national income by 2050. This is neither politically nor economically sustainable and whilst both parties have refused to rule out any changes to the system, Labour are in a far better position than the Tories to do so. The only demographic amongst which support for the Conservatives exceeds 30% is the over-65s. Unless the Conservatives drastically improve their offering to those of working age, they face a much larger electoral cost from upsetting pensioners than the Labour party, who poll close to 60% amongst both 18-34 and 35-44 year olds.  

One area where Sir Keir can expect sweeping gains without such troubles is Scotland. Currently, there are a mere 2 Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies, with the SNP (and the splinter party Alba) holding 45 of Scotland’s 59 seats. This will almost certainly change in Labour’s favour at the upcoming election. They now poll in line with the SNP at around 35% and could gain well over 20 seats. This as much owing to the failures of the SNP as it is to the successes of Labour. The SNP have held power in the Scottish Parliament since 2007, but they are no closer to delivering Scottish independence – their raison d’etre. Scandals over their finances and handling of sexual misconduct allegations against former leader Alex Salmond have diminished their attractiveness to the electorate further still.  

In 1997, the Labour party ended 18 years of Conservative government, and won 418 seats to the Conservatives’ 165. Then, as now, Labour polled at over 40%, the Tories trailing them by between 10% and 20%. If the Tories wish to avert a second 1997 (or worse) they have much ground to cover, but their legacy makes this task near impossible. Labour, on the other hand, aided by Sir Keir’s balancing act, stand to yield the greatest dividend from Tory failures. Yet, this is a rather different moment to 1997. Then, Labour told the electorate ‘things can only get better’. With an ongoing recession, high taxes, and the general sense that Britain is not working, such optimism will be hard to sell through anything other than gritted teeth.  The expected Labour government will face a sclerotic economy and gloomy public. No 1997, the better analogy is perhaps 1979.