On election night, hundreds of people and multiple expert panels gathered at the LSE to debate and analyse the big issues behind the election result: the state of UK politics, healthcare, the economy, foreign policy and democracy as a whole. Alexis Papazoglou Here are some of the key ideas that emerged from the night.
The Sheikh Zayed Theatre was packed, with around 400 people gathered for this prestigious and traditional event. LSE Election Night EventEven though the polls were remarkably consistent in predicting who the winner would be, a sense of anticipation built in the atmosphere as the main screen showed a countdown to the exit poll results.
This was an undoubted landslide victory for Labour and a historic defeat for the Conservatives. Although Labour’s 412 seats did not surpass their 1997 election result (418), it was still a significant victory. And while the Conservatives’ 120 seats did not fall into the double-digit abyss that some polls had predicted, it is still the lowest number in the party’s long history.
Tim Bale blamed the crushing defeat on a word that had barely been heard during the campaign but would be heard many times that night: “Brexit.”
Defeat of the Conservatives and Reform Party Rebellion
For Tim Bale, a leading authority on the Conservative Party and its history and professor of politics at Queen Mary University, this was a very bad result, even a disaster, but not an “existential defeat.” On election day, Vince Cable argued in this blog that the 2024 election could be the end for the Conservative Party, just as the 1924 election was for the Liberal Party. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Tim Bale attributes this crushing defeat to a word that was barely heard on the campaign trail, but would be heard many times that night: “Brexit.” Of course, a lot has happened since David Cameron decided to hold a referendum on whether to leave the EU, Bale said, especially some very poor leadership decisions on behalf of the Conservative Party, but without Brexit, we probably wouldn’t have gotten here.
Laura Serra, a researcher at the LSE, points out that not only have young voters abandoned the Conservatives, but they also don’t seem to “mature” into Conservative supporters as they get older as they once did. This isn’t just because young people hold to progressive values, but because they’re “maturing later” – people are buying homes, having children and getting stable jobs much later, or sometimes never at all, making Conservative policies less appealing to young people.
To the surprise of most panellists, exit polls had predicted that Reform would win 13 seats. This proved to be incorrect; Reform actually only won four seats, despite winning 14% of the national vote. The Liberal Democrats won 71 seats, beating most poll predictions. The unfairness of the single-member constituency system (Labour won 65% of Parliament with just 34% of the vote) is likely to come under scrutiny in the coming weeks.
Tim Bale wondered what this victory means for Nigel Farage, who has been at odds with every party he has led, while Laura Serra questioned the extent to which a Reform Party victory might unlock the potential of far-right parties in other European countries (France, Italy, Germany). Young people seem to be supporting the far-right in Europe, but it remains to be seen whether this will also happen in the UK.
Apart from the staggering increase in NHS waiting lists since 2010, Mr Street highlighted the fact that for the first time in peacetime, the nation’s life expectancy is falling.
NHS in Intensive Care
The tone of many panels was characterised by a common diagnosis of the country’s ills, but none was as harsh as the panel that discussed domestic policy, particularly healthcare. Andrew Street, professor of health economics at the LSE, was scathing in his criticism of the Conservative government’s neglect of the NHS, describing it as being in “intensive care”. Leaving aside the alarming increase in NHS waiting lists since 2010, Street highlighted the fact that for the first time in peacetime, the nation’s life expectancy is falling. He argued that a Labour government would need at least a decade to return the NHS to where it was before the Conservatives came to power in 2010, but was not at all optimistic about Labour’s proposed policy to get there, namely, extending working hours for already exhausted NHS staff.
Wendy Thompson, vice-chancellor of University College London, and Nicholas Barr, professor of public economics at the London School of Economics, argued that NHS hospitals alone cannot restore the nation’s health. Thompson spoke of “public health” and the importance of preventative measures to catch health problems early and prevent them from becoming too severe to require hospitalization or surgery, which are much more expensive. Meanwhile, Barr said that if there was one thing that could be done for public health, it would be to ban ultra-processed foods, which has nothing to do with the NHS.
The economy and how it grows
The economy was next on the agenda. Growth is what we need; no one disputes it. The question is how to achieve it. Private investment must be part of it, panelists agreed. But how to achieve it is not clear. The New York TimesHe noted how important stability is to investors and joked that it would be “interesting” to see what difference it would make to have five finance ministers in five years, as has been the case so far, versus one finance minister in five years.
Tim Besley argued a Labor government could attract more private investment by presenting a long-term vision for the country.
Richard Davies, a professor at the London School of Economics and Public Policy, made the unpopular remark to the audience that inequality within countries is not as bad as people think, and made the case for consumer-led growth, pointing out that many households have accumulated wealth in the form of homes and savings that can be used in that direction.
Tim Besley, professor of economics and politics at the LSE, argued that a Labour government could attract more private investment by offering a long-term vision that has been lacking recently. Labour’s Green Growth Strategy could be such a vision, but the devil is in the details. But Besley also argued that private investment must go hand in hand with public investment. Having a long-term plan would help in that respect too, as it would inspire market confidence and allow for borrowing and spending, something the Truss government was punished for by the markets.
Closing remarks by Esje Nelson were a good transition to the foreign policy panel. Nelson noted that the foreign press does not seem to be very interested in the UK elections. This is a problem for the UK. The UK needs to rethink its strategic relationships and engage with the rest of the world, rather than looking inward as it has done during the long Brexit period.
The Foreign Policy Committee agreed that this was the most important event in determining the country’s standing in the world.
The B-word
It’s hard now to remember that the 2019 election was essentially fought, and won, on the issue of Brexit. Boris Johnson secured a majority by promising the country he would “get it done”. Five years later, the words were barely uttered during the election campaign. And yet the Foreign Policy Panel agreed it was the most decisive event regarding Britain’s position in the world. Ian Begg, professorial research fellow at the LSE’s European Institute, reminded the audience that Keir Starmer had said Britain would not rejoin the EU in his lifetime. Keir Starmer is 60 years old.
Michael Cox, founding director of LSE IDEAS, echoed Begg’s sentiment that “Brexit itself has diminished the UK’s standing in the world.” That may not be a bad thing, but he argued that for historical reasons, the UK has a big military role (particularly in terms of its nuclear capabilities) that it doesn’t seem prepared to sustain.
Michael Cox argued that “what happens in the US elections in November will have a bigger impact on our foreign policy than this election itself.”
Stephanie Rickard, professor of politics at the London School of Economics and Politics, argued that while international trade is rarely a major election issue, it has a huge impact on people’s wallets. The big foreign policy and trade questions for the Labour government going forward will be whether to impose tariffs on Chinese electric cars. Will the UK align with the US or the EU?
The upcoming US election (curiously scheduled for Guy Fawkes Night, the same day the UK election fell on US Independence Day) was seen as having a major impact on British foreign policy, with Michael Cox even arguing that “what happens in the US election in November will have a bigger impact on our foreign policy than this election”.
Peter Trubowitz, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, has argued that if Donald Trump were to return to the US presidency, a Labour government could use it as an opportunity to negotiate with the EU offering it additional protection over its nuclear capabilities, perhaps in exchange for improved trade relations. Not exactly “Global Britain”, but a way of navigating geopolitical constraints.
For example, the requirement to show photo ID in order to vote was, by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s admission, explicitly designed to disenfranchise young voters who often don’t have a driving licence or passport.
Democratic Culture Beyond Elections
“The Future of Liberal Democracy” was a heavy theme to end the evening on, but in the British context it may have been a hopeful one. As Mukhrik Banerjee, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, argued, the fact that Britain is a country where elections are peaceful and largely conducted properly, and where losers concede, is something to be celebrated, not taken for granted.
That’s not to say the election was without its dark side: requiring photo ID to vote, for example, was clearly designed to disenfranchise young voters who often don’t have a driving licence or passport, as Jacob Rees-Mogg (who lost his seat) acknowledged.
But as Banerjee said, we need to think about what happens to democracy after the election is over. Does the UK have a strong democratic culture? During the election campaign, Banerjee noticed that many people are not interested in politics. The turnout for this election was very low, with only 60% of those eligible to vote voting.
While general elections are rightly seen as a “festival of democracy” and often manage to capture the attention of people who are usually not particularly interested in politics, Banerjee warned that unless we make an effort to foster a civic and democratic culture every time we have an election, we may find that our democracy is weaker than it appears.
Read more articles in the 2024 General Election series on the LSE blog.
All articles published on this blog give the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE UK Department of Politics and Policy, or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Shutterstock.
