Live coverage of the LSE election night event, featuring expert analysis by LSE academics and beyond on domestic policy, the British economy, foreign policy, the media, and the future of liberal democracy. 

This hasn’t been the most exciting of election campaigns, but the drama of election day itself  has the ability to raise the heart rate. Even if there is no doubt about which party is going to form the next Government, the details matter. Just how big is the Labour majority going to be, and are the Conservatives really going to be left with double digit seats? As Vince Cable wrote on election day, even in the UK’s two-party system it is possible that one party gets knocked so badly it never recovers. It’s happened before, one hundred years ago in the 1924 election that saw the end of the previously governing Liberal party. Will this election be the beginning of the end of the Conservative party?

Tony Travers  (Professor of Practice at the School of Public Policy) opened the event, remarking that this year the UK is not alone in going to the polls. It’s the greatest election year in human history, with a most unexpected late addition of France! (Perhaps Emmanuel Macron took a leaf out of Rishi Sunak’s book, though it’s not clear whether that’s a good thing). Travers also noted that bizarrely, in the UK elections took place on July 4, Independence Day in the US, whereas in the US elections are taking place on November 5, Guy Fawkes’ day in the UK. Not sure what to read into that.

Travers also tried to put the size of the predicted Labour majority in context. Below are the UK government majorities since 1918. Some polls are suggesting a majority similar to that of the 1932 National Government majority. That would indeed be of historic proportions.

Jenevieve Treadwell (London Policy Fellow at LSE) briefly revisited what happened back in the distant era of 2019, when the Conservative party won a landslide majority.

One of the critiques of the 2024 election campaign was that none of the major parties mentioned Brexit and the effects it’s had on the British economy. Looking at the graph below, it’s no wonder. Back in 2019, leaving the EU (“getting Brexit done”) was a priority for 70 per cent of voters. In 2024, just over 10 per cent of voters mention the country’s relationship to the EU as something that matters to them. Instead, the economy and the state of the NHS have become the main issues animating people’s worries, followed by immigration in third place.

And when it comes to the three main issues that matter to voters, there is a palpable shift in who they trusts to be able to deal with them. Perhaps not surprisingly, given that consecutive Conservative governments have presided over a worsening economic performance (especially during the short-lived Liz Truss government), historically high NHS waiting lists, as well as historically high immigration.

The big question of the night is not which party will win the most seats, or even which party will form the next government. It’s whether the Conservatives will manage to secure more than 100 seats in Parliament (they held 365 after the 2019 election). Some polls have the Conservative party winning as few as 64 seats, just three more than the Liberal Democrats. It’s hard to believe this is possible.  

Maps by Jenevieve Treadwell

Since the 2017 election we’ve come to trust MRP polling – polling that uses demographic analysis as well as polling results to break down the results per constituency –  a lot more than national polling that looks at the country’s overall picture, and then extrapolates from that to each individual seat. Jenevieve Treadwell thinks that this election’s actual result will probably lie somewhere in between the Uniform National Swing (which assumes the same national trends  across all constituencies) and the predictions of the MRP polls. 

​ 

Graph by Jenevieve Treadwell

British Politics – the first panel with Elinor Goodman, Tim Bale and Laura Serra

Elinor Goodman, former political editor of Channel 4 for several years, called this “a depressing election”, one of the most dishonest campaigns: the parties were not honest with the public in their manifestos. The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it a conspiracy of lies. Podcasts, according to Goodman, became the best place to get good information and analysis on the election – a telling comment from a former senior broadcaster.

Tim Bale, the country’s foremost expert of the Conservative party saw Brexit and the Cameron government as the source of all the troubles of the Conservatives. Boris Johnson was chosen just because he could win the election, even though the party knew he was not the right person for the job, and the pandemic proved that – Johnson then found himself in the the worst possible position. The name of Liz Truss elicits laughter from the crowd. Rishi Sunak, Bale argues, lacked the authority to lead the party out of the chaos. In short, the Conservatives made some very poor leadership choices. The party will now need to make a big decision about its future direction. But it’s unlikely to pick someone who will resonate with the rest of the party if the next leader is chosen in the same way.

Laura Serra, an LSE research officer, argues that age was the big change in how the country votes. A move away from class. Youth turnout has plummeted and hasn’t recovered, especially since Brexit. But the Conservative party has not only lost the youth vote, those young voters are also not turning into Conservative voters as they age. One of the reasons is “delayed maturation”. People buy houses, have children, get steady jobs much later in life, or not at all in some cases. This is a wider phenomenon in Europe, but more so in the UK. Parties more broadly don’t appeal to young voters, because they don’t think they will vote. Parties also misunderstand what young people care about. It’s not just progressive values, they also care about the economy, good jobs, housing, and other core policy issues.

The first reactions to the Exit Poll

Tim Bale: it’s a disaster, a very bad defeat, but not an existential defeat of the Conservative party. But still concerned that the party will go in the wrong direction. Also impressive result for the Liberal Democrats – they will be pleased with their campaign, and becoming third party again, with all the privileges that entails. Reform have also done surprisingly well. Unclear what that means for Farage, who has managed to fall out with all the parties he has previously created and lead. The SNP though has done quite badly. A 170 seat majority for Labour, even if the vote share is less than 40 per cent, is still a win.

Elinor Goodman: was always suspicious of some of the MRP polls. Sunak will be able to claim it’s not quite the disaster that the party was anticipating. Perhaps he won’t be resigning first thing tomorrow morning,

Laura Serra. Shocked by the large Reform gains (13 seats). Serra hears in this echoes of Italy (she is herself Italian). Is the UK going in a similar direction? How many young people supported Reform – that will be interesting to see, in other European countries the young are supporting the far right parties, something we haven’t seen in the UK so far.

Domestic Policy – the second panel with  Nicholas Barr, Andrew Street and Wendy Thomson

Nicolas Barr – the lessons for the next government: 1. Don’t shoor yourself in the foot ( the Pandemic and the war in Ukraine were external shocks, Brexit, austerity). 2. Tax cuts are not the answer (see Liz Truss government).

Wendy Thomson – the one big lessons importance of consistent leadership, clear purpose and vision. Only the Cameron government had something resembling that (even if it was austerity-based). After that, it was all chaos.

Andrew Street – there is nothing to be learned from the Conservatives when it comes to health. The Labour Party needs to go back to what it was doing during its previous government. Waiting times and waiting lists, as well as life expectancy is falling – the first time during peacetime. On social care, there is a lesson. None of the recommendations of the 2011 review have been implemented. “If you’re told what to do by those who know what they are talking about, do it!”

The issue of poverty is next.

Nicholas Barr. The low growth of the economy, coupled with austerity are the two major sources of current poverty. The two-child limit when it comes to the child benefit is also mentioned as a source of child poverty in particular.

Wendy Thompson – most people in poverty are working! We need to stop the moral panic around the non-working, benefit-receiving.

Decentralisation of government next on the agenda.

Wendy Thompson has real government experience. The cuts of the austerity years were extraordinary. The regressive taxation, and the fact that elderly care and child-care is funded by a form of property tax is also extraordinary. Local councils have nowhere near enough the funds to fund care. If you want to see economic growth, and more even across the country, more local powers need to be given to councils and local authorities.

Andrew Street – Labour should steal some of the ideas of the Liberal Democrats on social care. The Labour party’s manifesto commitments for improving the NHS are both not enough, and implausible given the way they thing they will achieve them (by making the burned-out NHS staff work more). There are currently 150,000 vacancies in the NHS – “there is no capacity to do more work”! The policies need  to address staff retention and hiring.

Labour has also promised for the increase of scanners, which are desperately needed because of the UK’s poor performance compared to other counties when it comes to cancer diagnosis and treatment. But an even bigger problem is the lack of actual hospital beds. As a patient, you must count yourself lucky if you end up in hospital and don’t find yourself lying in a corridor rather than a proper bed and room.

Wendy Thompson rebuts that more staff alone won’t be enough -we do need more machinery in the NHS to catch up with other countries and be more efficient. Population health is another area we need to finally focus on and actually do it – meaning the NHS shouldn’t allow conditions to become so severe than surgery and other expensive interventions are needed – we need to treat people earlier.

Nicholas Barr – Prices in healthcare go up faster than elsewhere because of the nature of skilled labour and services more generally. Barr has written on this “Baumol Cost Disease” on the blog previously. Another message to the new government is that borrowing, if guided by a proper strategy (not like the Liz Truss government) is possible and can be beneficial. The ratio of GDP to debt is not the only thing that matters – it also matters what that debt has been used for.

Health is not just the business of the NHS, but also of society more broadly. Banning ultra-processed food would have an enormous impact on the health of the country.

Andrew Street – It’s going to take at least two parliamentary terms to get the NHS where it was in 2010. “The NHS is in intensive care.” Health is important not just in itself, but also for the economic productivity of the country. “If you die prematurely, you’re not going to be very economically productive!”

The British Economy – the third panel, Tim Besley, Richard Davies, Professor in Practice, Eshe Nelson

The state of the UK economy first up.

Richard Davies – the Reform number was the most concerning from the exit poll. Concerning for anyone who cares about liberal democracy.

Inequality in the UK is not as bad as is usually touted when we look at the distance between the lowest 10% and the median wage. The minimum wage is there as a result of the state not trusting the private sector to pay enough wages.

Fiscal drag – a way to not literally put up the tax rates, but the result, because of growth, is that the tax burden is going up. A way for the government to fund

At the same time, we have the loss of jobs, especially in steelmaking. Not a good combination for the future of liberal democracy.

Eshe Nelson – Bidenomics as a way of getting companies to invest more in labour and job growth. The result has been healthy growth, and job creation. Despite that, people are feeling down about the economy. Are we going to see the same in the UK?

Tim Besely – What Labour should do next? Invest! If we can find a way to increase private investment from 16 per cent to 20 per cent (closer to those of other countries) that will make a difference. Public investment is also very low – there is room for increasing that as well, from 1.3 per cent to 1.5 – 1.7 per cent. The reason private investment is low has nothing to do with the UK’s tax regime as some claim, it has to do with the lack of vision. We need a credible strategy for a green economy and infrastructure. Labour have made some promises in that direction, but the devil is in the detail. Another key area is decentralisation – though unclear to what extent Labour wants to go there.

Eshe Neslon – it would be interesting to see what life will be like with one chancellor for a long time, rather than five in five years,  allowing a long-term vision. Stability will be key. But the world overall is also changing, moving towards protectionism and not leaving things to the free-market, and it would be interesting to see how the UK navigates this. But nothing inherent in the UK’s economy or outlook that should scare private investors.

Richard Davies – there is room for consumption-led growth, many households have wealth in the form of housing and savings that they can used. Changing the fiscal rules and listening to the OBR forecasts? A way to help public investment get through these constraints, since the effect on growth won’t be for a little while, whereas the effect on the debt will be noticed straight away.

Tim Besely – having a long-term plan can inspire confidence in people (and in the markets) so that borrowing and spending is forgiven. That will allow them to tidy up the financial mess they will inherit. Never allow accountants to run the government who want to categorise government spending in rigid ways. Breaking the fiscal rules should make economic sense, not accounting sense.

Eshe Nelson – we need to think of the international context. The foreign press seems not particularly interested in the UK elections. The country needs to rethink its strategic relationships and engage with the rest of the world, rather than looking inwards (like during Brexit).

Speaking of Brexit, an audience member asks whether the UK can repair its relations with the EU. Richard Davies is very sceptical of the capacity of the new Government to strike a new deal with the EU. The conditions in Germany and France don’t suggest that the EU would be particularly interested in a new partnership with the UK. Eshe Nelson thinks some “mini deals” on for example education could be possible,” but doesn’t think there is an appetite for reopening that can of worms.

Foreign Policy – the fourth panel  – Iain Begg, Michael Cox, Stephanie Rickard, Peter Trubowitz

Iain Begg – Brexit is the elephant in the room of the election, and the cause of the demise of the Conservatives. How Keir Starmer deals with the EU, with his French and German counterpart, will redefine the UK’s relationship to Europe. Keir Starmer saying the UK will not re-join the EU in his lifetime (he’s only 60) means we need to envisage a new relationship to the EU.

Michael Cox – Corbin made foreign policy front and centre of his policy agenda. Without him, foreign policy (for better or worse) foreign policy fell through the cracks. Brexit gets another mention – no one wants to talk about it. The other reason that foreign policy hasn’t been discussed as much is because Britain has a diminished position in the world today – its parochialism means the policy agenda is focusses on the domestic. Finally, what happens in the US elections (we are “waiting for Donald”) means we can’t really know what will happen to the US – China, or US – Russian relations.

Stephanie Rickard – international trade rarely features as a big issue in elections, but it does affects people’s pockets. No real difference between Labour and the Conservatives on free trade. But – tariffs on Chia’s electric vehicles is the big foreign policy and trade issue waiting in the wings for the new government – does the  UK align with the US, Europe?

Peter Trubowitz – If Trump wins in the US, Starmer will have to lean more heavily on the geopolitical side of politics. He will have to invest more intensely on security issues. This will also complicate the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries. The UK facing an increasingly dark geopolitical environment, at the same time as deep domestic problems.

Iain Begg – we get obsessed with the GDP to Dept ratios. The question is what we are buying with that money. What is the quality and usefulness of the equipment we are purchasing.

Michael Cox – “Brexit itself was a diminution of the country’s position in the world” – our position in the world is smaller. Maybe that’s not a bad thing – we’ve been punching above our weight. But for historical reasons, we have those military protections (like nuclear) but we don’t seem prepared to pay what it takes to keep those going.

Peter Trubowitz – to what extent does the UK have the autonomy to act independently from the US? Not surprised if the Labour government makes the case for the UK’s important role with its nuclear deterrence. A smart move would be to offer protection to the EU in exchange for better trade rules, for instance. That would help address some of the domestic concerns too. Not exactly “Global Britain”, but a way of navigating the geopolitical constraints.

Stephanie Rickard – the UK has a lot of soft power – you see that around the world –  but it’s not a substitute for good foreign policy. Economic growth can’t happen with soft power – that needs trade policy, strong foreign policy, etc. Hard policy choices are needed to grow the domestic economy.

Michael Cox – “what happens in the US in November’s election will have a greater impact on our foreign policy that this election”.

Is there scope of UK leadership on climate?

Stephanie Rickard – yes, but we need to see if Labour is really committed. Britain is stuck between US and Brussels when it comes to, for example, China’s electric cars. The second issue is whether the UK will align with the EU on climate objectives.

Peter Trubowitz – if Trump gets elected, there will be an opportunity for the UK to lead on climate.

The question of China – Iain Begg doesn’t expect any great shift on the UK’s policy on China, and that will again hugely depend on the US’s stance on China.

Peter Trubowitz – the US will not seek military support from the UK in case of a Taiwan conflict – but it will seek support on economic issues (potential new sanctions etc).

Alexander Evans – almost every government deals with surprises when it comes to foreign policy, and this government will be no different.

AI, fake news and the media – the fifth panel – Nick Anstead, Helen Margetts, Julie Posetti

AI and deep fakes haven’t been as big a player as people were worried about in this election

Julie Possetti – there has been some evidence of Russia-aligned bot networks that have tried to interfere, promoting Reform in particular. But it has certainly not been the overwhelming avalanche that was expected.

Helen Margetts – there was a lot of hype, and it was supposed to be the  year of the AI election. At the beginning of the year there were numerous symposia on “AI and democracy” – fearing interference with elections, but the hype hasn’t materialised. People are very concerned – especially about “deep fakes”, but there is a gap between what people are worries about and experiencing. Research also shows that campaign micro-targeting too has been overhyped. Also, when it comes to TickTock, a platform that’s used primarily by the young, the organic building of a following is hard to contrive.

Nick Anstead – political science research shows that election campaigns don’t really matter. They only matter at the margins. What matters are the fundamentals – and the single biggest fundamental in this election is that salaries haven’t grown in over a decade. Communication (legitimate and illegitimate) has to exist in the structure created by these fundamentals. For example, the Conservative party has run a rubbish campaign – they were looking for a message that sticks, and were unable to find one. On the other hand, the Labour party hasn’t said very much in their campaign – that’s a manifestation of their “Ming vase” strategy.

Julie Possetti – we shouldn’t underestimate the fact that this election is an aberration of what is happening in other parts of the world, both it terms of the direction of politics but also in terms of what takes place it terms of political violence. The worry people have is that these technologies (e.g. for example bot-networks) will make politics more violent.

Helen Margetts – the platforms don’t behave the same way everywhere. They moderate the content better when it comes to a UK election (and other English-speaking countries with strong states) than in other contexts and countries. The big example here is Myanmar, but there are hundreds of other countries like that.

Nick Anstead – on the debate format, a question of its future given that Labour and the Conservatives got approximately together only 60 per cent of the vote. Is this the GB News election, given Farage’s apparent success? Questions remain over how to regulate an explicitly biased tv medium.

Audience question – was there a better campaign the Conservatives could have run? Charlie Becket “There’s an English expression, “You can’t polish a turd””.

The future of liberal democracy – final panel – Chris Anderson, Mukulika Banerjee and Andrés Velasco

A chance to look at the broader context and geopolitical environment.

Andres Velasco – Liberal democracy is under siege, sometimes from the right, sometimes from the left. This can seem like a remote occurrence here in London, but it can –  see “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The standard account of the NYT is inequality – perhaps that is true in the US, but not in the rest of the world. Income inequality has not been rising in many of the places where we see authoritarian threats – in fact inequality in many places has been on the decline. This reading is too Anglo-central.

Mukulika Banerjee – the fact that elections are carried out properly  is something to celebrated. But, for example, the requirement of photo-id in this election, something that is meant to disenfranchise younger voters who often don’t have the right kind of id required, is something we need to be cautious of. Also, we need to think about what happens to democracy once elections are over. We need to think of what constitutes a democratic culture – canvasing makes  one realise how little many people care about politics. We need to be growing a civic culture after each election,

Chris Anderson – we used to think that democracy survives if the losers accept the result. We saw what happens when that doesn’t happen in the US. But we forget the winners in this picture – e.g. rigging the electoral system for the next elections when in power. Winners need to deliver something concrete that makes people’s lives better. If governments don’t deliver, they forsake the right to rule. This is what we saw in this election. When you talk to real people you realise how fragile democracy is – most people don’t think about politics.

Andres Velasco – the crucial social fact of today’s world is the reaffirmation of the tribal nature of human beings. The puzzle is how do we square this with a collective, shared identity. The breakdown of this shared identity – when we are a “community of fate” – then democracy can work. Economic delivery is not absolutely necessary, but even if it is, it is not sufficient.

Mukulika Banerjee – the word “polarisation” is often used when it comes to the rise of the extreme right. The same when it comes to the “rise of populism”. But there is also an issue of social inequality, even if the economy is booming – in, for example, India. There is a danger of dismissing those who voted Brexit, Trump, Le Pen as stupid, uneducated. Polarisation is a direct consequence of an economics that has become dogma.

Chris Anderson – the rise of the extreme right is a symptom of deeper causes. Ultimately there is a real catch for governments – asked to solve problems that are global (climate change, migration, war) and yet national governments have less control over these problems.

Closing remarks by Tony Travers

The rancour and the discourse can sometime make elections seem brutal, but if you think elections are bad now, look at William Hogarth’s works  from the 18th century.

Read more articles on the LSE blogs’ General Election 2024 series. 

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.