General Election 2024: An Analysis

With the dust still settling on a quite extraordinary set of results from the General Election, what are some of the lessons we can take away? At that, what are some of the lessons the Parties themselves can take away?

Before getting stuck into the meat and drink of the analysis, let us first remind ourselves of the new makeup of parliament:

Party	Seats	Seat Change	Popular Vote	Share of Vote	Change in vote share (vs. 2019)
Labour	411	+211	9,704,655	33.7%	+1.6
Conservatives	121	-251	6,827,311	23.7%	-19.9
Liberal Democrats	72	+64	3,519,199	12.2%	+0.7
SNP	9	-39	724,758	2.5%	-1.3
Independents	6	+6	564,243	2%	+1.4
Reform UK	5	+4	4,117,221	14.3%	+12.3
Green	4	+3	1,841,888	6.4%	+3.8
Plaid Cymru	4	+2	194,811	0.7%	+0.2
NI Parties	18	0	779,216	N/A	N/A

Note: The independent column includes one NI independent, meaning there were 5 independents elected across Great Britain. On a separate note, I have not included the Northern Irish parties simply due to my own ignorance surrounding the workings of those parties and, as such, I feel it improper to attempt to give a half-baked analysis of the results there. That said, in one outcome in Northern Ireland, the NI Conservative Party candidate in South Down received 46 votes which was rather amusing…

There is an awful lot to break down within these numbers (and, indeed, outside of these numbers) and, as such, I will be breaking down the analysis of the election into sections. First, what these numbers say about British democracy and the voting system. Second, what these previous factors tell us about the parties and how their platforms have been received by the voting public. Third and finally, what this landslide in seats for Labour means for them in government and what others have been saying about these results and what the left and progressives can learn.

All good? Nice one, let’s crack on then.

1 – British Democracy and the Voting System

The Conservatives didn’t simply lose this election, they were demolished. A return of only 121 seats represents the worst result in the party’s history: even John Major was able to get 40 odd more than that. Not only that, but the 20% drop in popular support for the Tories was simply staggering and an exceptionally stark rejection of another 5 years of Tory rule; a reflection that even the stiff upper lip of the Brits have a limit to their patience and that: cronyism, economic mismanagement, allowing millions to go hungry and without a house to call their own, and outright sheer incompetence and division will not be tolerated in the halls of the highest office in the land. In this, at least, we can allow ourselves a moment of rejoice.

Leaving aside the partisan and broader political arguments for a moment (for which there will be plenty of scope later) it would be remise of me to not point out what to many has been appallingly stark at this election, namely that these election results are not remotely proportional. Wherever there are seats where less than 30% of the voting electorate has voted for the winning candidate, questions need to be asked.

While on a personal level I am very pleased that Labour have won in such a landslide, to have won nearly 2/3rds of the seats in parliament with only 34% of the vote is a quite comical indictment of our first past the post (FPTP) voting system.

It is not, of course, quite as simple as this however or indeed quite as simple as saying that only 34% of the electorate would have welcomed a Labour win. Rather, factors such as tactical voting based on constituency boarders, turnout, etc, need to be considered and accepted. Even allowing for this, however, we are left with quite a stark elephant in the room; namely, that of the Reform UK vote and seat share.

Reform UK are a repugnant party that deserve to be nowhere near parliament. However, much to my own relief as much as anyone else’s, I am not the soul arbiter and spokesperson of the electorate. Therefore, to see any party win over 4 million votes while winning only 5 seats should raise serious questions as to the validity of our democratic process.

Indeed, taking the votes of Reform, the Lib Dems, the Greens, and the independent candidates together grants a total of over 10 million votes… for a return of 87 MP’s. For context, Labour achieved 9.7 million votes and returned 411!

I have argued this point in previous articles before, but FPTP is an absurd voting system. As is, however, complete proportionate representation in my view (see: Weimar Germany). However, there are other, much fairer systems out there that return a far more proportional share of MP’s. For instance, my preferred method would be mixed member proportionate representation as they have in Germany, but perhaps that discussion is for another day as there is plenty to get through here.

Finally on this section is the point of turnout. Turnout was only about 60% for this election, quite substantially down on previous General Elections. There are many potential reasons for this apathy, but I think the reasons can be boiled down into 3 main components. Frist, many voters saw this election as a foregone conclusion and slam dunk for Labour (in fairness, they had a point) and, as such, stayed at home. Second, the collapse of the Tory vote, as in 1997, can at least in part be down to Tory apathy. Namely, those traditionally Conservative voters who would never vote for Labour but could not bring themselves to vote Tory or Reform and so stayed home. Finally, a lack of enthusiasm for the new Labour government, which in part ties into the 2 former points and something we will deal with in greater depth later.

These points from this section, all taken together, are troubling for the legitimacy of the British democratic process. When people aren’t voting, when their votes aren’t heard or counted, and when they system means some constituencies have voters with an MP 70% of them didn’t vote for (even more than that if you can’t those who stayed home altogether), then we have a real problem and a great elephant in the house of commons becoming increasingly clear called ‘electoral reform’.

2 – How were the parties received?

This was a slightly unusual election in terms of the tone of each of the parties for the very simple reason that all the parties effectively knew the result was a foregone conclusion before a vote was even cast. As such, the only real question was this: what would the size of the Labour majority to be? And just how many seats would the Tories lose?

Accordingly, we saw a Labour campaign focussing extremely heavily on fiscal responsibility, and not without cause. While it looked for all the world like a landslide was inevitable, echoes of 2015 and 2019 would surely have been present; two elections where Labour were simply not seen as having credibility of the fiscal front. This irritated many on the left who would have preferred to see a much bolder platform from Labour (indeed, this is something I myself am sympathetic to) but it’s hard to argue with the result and the scale of the landslide Labour achieved. Tories stayed home (some even voted Labour, something Labour needed to win the seats they did), not thinking Labour an economic threat, while the votes Labour lost in metropolitan areas to the Greens and pro-Gaza independents were seen as acceptable loses, especially given just how safe many of those inner-city seats were to begin with anyway. The appalling state of the SNP also came into play massively in Scotland where a huge uptick in the Labour vote saw the SNP lose a torrent of seats. However, Labour would be wise not to leave the core left base behind: a base with legitimate concerns about the way they may govern and their attitude towards the conflict in Gaza.

Inversely, the Tory campaign was also bewitching in its beauty from a Labour perspective. Cock up after cock up, Rishi Sunak looking more out of place than the Scottish national team at the Euros, and a policy platform almost comical in its desperation and unpopularity. Every shred of trust in the Conservatives has been thoroughly decimated from within over the past few years and I think it was a telling reflection of how ‘party first’ those charlatans were that they would go on and on with outright lies (remember that supposed £2,000 Labour tax rise claim?). Their negative and divisive campaign lead them exactly where they belong: back into the wilderness.

The sheer collapse in the Troy vote also lent itself very handily to the Lib Dems, who’s leader, Ed Davey, seemed to be thoroughly enjoying the campaign: from paddle boarding to bungee jumping, he had the all the swagger of a man who knew his party was on the precipice of some huge gains in the Tory heartlands. I also think they came out with some really good ideas in their manifesto as well which was nice to see. For instance, and in particular, their clear passion on health and social care is something I hope they hold Labour to account on.

Reform UK did the job they set out to do as well: divide the Tory vote and get MP’s elected into parliament for the first time. Their success is something that should worry progressives as much as the Tories, however. With the views of Reform, and previously UKIP, now thoroughly in the mainstream, the emphasis is on the new Labour government to understand why those voters voted the way they did: 4 million votes don’t just happen on their own. Rather, these votes reflect the state of the nation for so many people, chiefly one of decline and, at best, stagnation. The populist left with the Greens haven’t been able to pick up these disaffected voters en masse which is why Reform have done so well from a right populist perspective: able to point to immigrants as an easy answer for all the ills we face as a nation. It is a disgusting tactic. The job of this Labour government will be to give those Reform voters other answers by fixing housing, the NHS and public services; to show Reform voters that the hate and division propagated by the party they voted for holds no answers to a better society, but only serves to divide us further and further.

The Greens also ran a good campaign, going from just 1 seat to 4 and it will be particularly interesting to see the role they will play in pushing Labour further on issues where they clearly need to be pushed. I didn’t much care for the manner in which they ran their campaign fully however, focusing on attacking Labour far more than the Tories who have, you know, been in power for 14 years. However, their policy platform (if not remotely realistic) was a bold and progressive one and for that I commend them.

3 – What will a Labour government look like and what are the lessons for the Left?

The big question: what now? What will Labour look like in government and will they be as bold and brave as they need to be to meaningfully transform society and save our public services?

The Labour manifesto, for many, was one of great caution: one of restoring credibility to what a Labour party may look like in government and one of reassurance that adults would be back in charge. This irritated many on the Left, who claimed that Labour could have been bolder and braver on numerous policy issues; on this, I agree, and it was in particular a shame to see the 2-child benefit cap not be lifted. This being said, however, there is some nuance often missed by many in the fact that the economy is in tatters. Careful economic management may not make for a sexy manifesto, but the positive impact a more stable economy will bring is very often understated. Simply by bringing back economic stability, Labour will have greater revenue without having to change anything within the tax system; revenue that can be used to fund and reform public services in desperate need of an uplift.

We have also already seen just what a breath of fresh air this Labour government has been in just the first few days. Already, the Rwanda scheme has been scrapped and placed in the dustbin of history where it belongs, cabinet ministers have been appointed to posts where they actually have expertise (a stark departure from the Tories), and the optics are clear of sensible people now being in power and being there for the express purpose of public service.

I would also like to address the response to Labour that has been presented by so many on the left. Namely, one of attack, attack, attack. Forget the 14 years of the Tories, Labour aren’t ideologically pure enough for me and therefore hang all those they are going to help! If it isn’t on my terms, it cannot happen.

This is such a frustrating thing to see and is, sadly, a reflection of the partisan and sectarian politics we have seen over the past few years. I wanted Jeremy Corbyn in power, I voted for him for leader and in a general election, but those days are gone. The economy is in a completely different place, and I’m afraid he isn’t coming back.

Just because this Labour government won’t be as left wing as a Corbyn government does not suddenly mean they are all devils or that there is now a freehand to spread misleading and false information about what they will do in government. It is also not a pass to make horrible personal attacks or to endorse the repugnant Workers Party (who I’m very glad didn’t win any seats). Far from ‘kinder, gentler politics’ the sanctimonious echo chambers of some in the anti-Labour left (‘some’ being prerogative here) only serves to demonstrate that they don’t care about improving the lives of ordinary people, not really. For them, this election has been a vanity project to stroke the ego of the likes of Owen Jones and to be ‘right’ at all costs.

For instance, many on this side have been calling Labour ‘genocide enablers’ for their stance on the Gaza-Israel conflict. What was one of the first things Keir Starmer did when he became Prime Minister? Call the Prime Minister of Israel to call for a cease fire. I’m afraid beyond this, Starmer is not the Prime Minister of Israel and cannot suddenly end the conflict from Westminster.

On the left, we need to be a critical but constructive voice to the Labour government: holding them to account for their actions, not shouting them down for not being a purist force of socialism. We should be judging them for the material differences they make to people’s lives, not chastising them for things they haven’t done in the first 72 hours of government. We should be wanting to see peoples lives and public services improve, not stroke our own egos by sanctimoniously chanting about how they must be evil because they are no longer the party of Corbyn.

We should hold the Labour government to account, challenging them when they inevitably cock up on x or y policy, cheering them when they bring about meaningful change in a or b policy, not wasting our breath dividing the left further because the change isn’t from the throne of ideological purity.

Finally, I leave you with some words I said a year ago which I believe hold special credence for this piece and this debate:

Keir Starmer is not the leader of the Labour Party I necessarily want. I don't think he's radical enough and frankly dishonest at times. However, if the research, reports, and articles I've written have taught me one thing it's that we couldn’t afford another tory government. Starmer does not go far enough for my liking in so many capacities. However, so many millions of people simply cannot afford another Tory government. People need change now, even if it’s only a few steps in the right direction, and I think it will be far more than that in actuality. And so, Keir Starmer is now the Prime Minister, and I'll be damned if I don't support him as he attempts to transform the country for the better.

My Socialism is grounded in the idea of helping the many that need it. I could not have, in good mind, sacrifice a Labour government that is not ideologically pure enough for 5 more years of Tory rule. Part of being a good Socialist is fighting for those who need it the most. This Labour government will help so many millions of people, start repairing the damage to the NHS and public services, and give so many people the lift they need to live. I want to fight to make that happen. I want Labour to commit further too, and I'll fight for that as well.

I hope this gives people an idea of my political philosophy and what I fight for. I am no sectarian; I want to see people get the help they need NOW rather than stay in opposition while remaining ideologically pure. We will score no runs from the pavilion, let’s score some now we’re into bat.