In an era when Blair brought in retail politics and manifestos have become strictly costed menus, the two main political parties have strayed far away from having an ideology to governing by managerialism. Are we now on the cusp of populism?
In 2024 we reached a point that the Labour Party manifesto was so pared down it was a contradiction from the message given – “change” – change to what? The Labour manifesto left very little for the Tories to use its ‘socialism’ smear.
The lurch to the centre is typified by two managerialist manifestos being delineated by ‘how’ – for instance, on immigration both parties have recognised it as a voter priority, the Tories had their Rwandan policy for immigrants arriving, whilst Labour want to ‘smash the gangs.’
Whilst Labour simply focused on the need for change, the Tories offered a blitz of policies that simply became noise – a national service idea that was soon hidden away. Labour said nothing knowing that a 20 point lead in the polls needed no policy stimulus. There was no doubt the Tories had the creative edge – but voters were left wondering why the country had been left to drift and some of these ideas not been launched earlier.
So in spite of two insipid leaders, two unconvincing manifestos (for different reasons) we voted, not for Labour, but for change.
The interesting activity was in the constituencies. Reform had more votes nationally than the Liberal Democrats but managed only 5 seats to Liberal Democrats’ 72. Labour had a lower percentage of the votes than in 2019 but managed a landslide victory – with many of these victories on slimmed down majorities. The question is whether firstly the Tories truly recognised the danger of Reform cannibalising their vote and had a plan to attack Reform (obviously not) and secondly, if they had a plan to target seats to save like Labour did, again, unlikely. So Labour and Tory votes were hoovered up by Reform.
A defiantly anti-populist Kier Starmer has unveiled his plan in power with a raft of unelected experts to deliver them (such as with prisons), similar aims to the Tories (lower immigration and fix the NHS) with a sprinkle of Labour ideas (more housebuilding, more solar farms). But the lack of an ideological stance grounded in its working class voters will end with indiffierence.
A key issue with the Conservative Party is that they have lost sight of their Conservative voting stronghold and paid the price for it with Liberal Democrats taking the Tory heartlands and Reform mopping up votes further up North. The Labour party also has issues with holding onto its traditional working class voters. They voted for Boris Johnson in 2019 and Nigel Farage in 2024. It has spent the last few years shedding its left wing and in so doing the days of Blair’s ‘big tent’ politics are in the past. Labour’s vote share was so low it clearly lacks a working class stronghold to maintain power. Retail politics of theLabour Party – its five missions may simply be too anaemic for the electorate to be convinced of real change.
Frustration with Rishi Sunak – who talked the talk on the NHS, economy and immigration but failed to deliver – was undoubtedly taken advantage of by Nigel Farage. In the same vein Kier Starmer has an activist element within the Labour Party that is identitarian and a world away from the working class voters views. Could these challenges herald the end of the duopoly?
The outcome of the election is a significant swing to minority parties with mixed results. The Liberal Democrats were highly successful with its localised middle-class manifesto that fits the South West and Home Counties. Reform cannibalised recorded more votes than the Liberal Democrats but with an amatuerish operation only managed five seats.
If we had Proportional Representation then Labour would be obliged to talk to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party to Reform. Is proportional representation the only way for these votes to be treated fairly?
With the overall vote down the collapse in loyalty to the two main parties will only provoke more apathy and challenge to the imbalance between votes and seats caused by First Past the Post. If we are now on the cusp of populism then it may take more apathy and civil challenge to bring about real change. Is this election a sign that populism is on the cusp of becoming mainstream in politics?
