Labour Wins U.K. Elections as Conservatives Collapse and Third Parties Surge
Keir Starmer’s Labour secures a sweeping victory, taking the helm from Rishi Sunak.

The results are in, and it's a landslide. After 14 years in power, Britain's Conservative Party has been expelled from office in the most dramatic of fashions—with its worst electoral result in decades.
Rishi Sunak, the man who pledged to restore stability after a ruinous period of high inflation and political chaos, has already tendered his resignation to the King. His successor—the former lawyer turned center-left politician Keir Starmer—will now lead Britain's first Labour government for almost 20 years, having won as many seats in parliament as former Prime Minister Tony Blair back in 1997.
What went wrong for Sunak? Honestly, the better question is where to start. Sunak had come into office in the fall of 2022 promising a technocratic overhaul: a series of five Key Performance Indicator-style pledges (on the economy, immigration, and the national health service) designed to restore trust in government. When he called the election back in May, he had just about achieved the fiscal ones (including halving inflation) but was no closer to solving the others.
Instead, Sunak's time in office was characterized by a lack of vision. Despite revealing himself as a critic of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's lockdown-mania (albeit one who served in Britain's Covid government), Sunak's time in power seemed to revolve around petty authoritarian interventions designed to improve the behavior of teenagers. Signature initiatives included criminalizing near-harmless nitrous oxide, championing a smoking ban similar to the one introduced by former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and consulting on banning the sale of smartphones to children under 16 (like the smoking ban, this never actually came to pass).
After surprising everyone, including many of his parliamentary colleagues, by announcing a sudden election, Sunak offered his next big idea: the return of national service, under which Britain's teenagers would be forced to report for mandatory community work once a month. At a time of economic uncertainty and frustration, the prime minister seemed less like a great political reformer and more like a strict high school principal.
Goodness knows how it went down with the swing voters, many of whom, polls suggest, remain utterly exasperated at Britain's creaking public services and stagnant economy. By the time the general election arrived, the Conservatives were trailing in the polls to Labour not just on the headline figure, but also on policy issues that were once considered their political birthright like illegal migration (which hit new highs during Sunak's tenure).
There were other factors, too, on the campaign trail: notably, the return of Reform U.K. party leader Nigel Farage to the political frontline. Britain's parliamentary election system made the idea of a Farage-led government a non-starter. But his allure to a voter base built on Boris Johnson and Brexit was undeniable. Polls consistently showed that scores of previous Conservative voters had switched their allegiance to Farage's party.
In the end, Farage's party netted just four of 650 seats. By cannibalizing the right-wing vote, though, they made it much easier for Labour to pick up seats in northern England and the Midlands. To give Sunak his credit, he had consistently warned voters that such an outcome would happen. Either they called his bluff, or they just didn't care.
And what of the future? Conservative commentators have been quick to point out that there is no great wave of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer's Labour government. An assessment evidenced by the fact that, despite playing the electoral system masterfully, Starmer's Labour Party actually amassed fewer votes (both in net and percentage terms) than the far-left Jeremy Corbyn racked up in his landslide defeat in 2019.
Such facts are useful for trivia, but they both miss the fundamental point. Politics in Britain is as cynical as it is in other Western nations. Winners cross the finish line not thanks to flag-waving enthusiasm, but due to being the least worst candidate (as was the case for Tony Blair and David Cameron). The low vote share, meanwhile, can be largely explained by the surge in enthusiasm for "third party" candidates (namely the Liberal Democrats and Green Party).
Ultimately, Starmer proved successful in betting that he could win over the crucial middle-class voters by expunging the naive radicalism that characterized the Jeremy Corbyn years. Such clever branding may have won the election, but it won't translate to a plan for effective government. Not that Starmer is naive on that front. Apparently, his aides have already prepared a "shit list" of potential policy catastrophes that might derail any honeymoon.
One example on the list is the looming prison crisis. By official estimates, Britain's prisons are more than 99 percent full (the culmination of population growth and a failure to build anything in decades). Earlier this year, the Conservatives quietly began releasing prisoners early in order to free up space for incoming offenders. At least one of those released turned out to be a serious danger to children.
What will Labour do? Starmer's team have briefed the media that they will prioritize building more prison places. But doing so will cost money. Ever since the Liz Truss debacle—when a nominally right-wing prime minister spooked the markets by signaling her enthusiasm to increase dependence on borrowing—British governments have had to walk the tightest of fiscal tightropes. Solving the problem will likely require more taxation, or rerouting money from elsewhere.
Still, Starmer has at least some form for defying expectations. When he took control of the Labour Party back in April 2020, just months after the party's worst electoral result in a generation, even his closest allies were cautious about his chances of winning power. He's certainly managed that. As for what happens afterward, we'll just have to wait and see.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Repeatedly and openly betraying your constituents tends to do that to a party. Sunak only tamed inflation because the Bank of England revised it’s dire pronouncements and actions used in the coup of Liz Truss to get Sunak in, for everything else he may as well have been Labor
Came into say this. The Conservativr party is their even more of a GOPe than here. They accomplished none of their campaign goals. Often demuring to the left.
Reform party actually picked up seats.
Jesse gives himself too little credit.
Without American encouragement, British climate cranks could never have split the Tory vote to such an extent that Even Rees-Moog lost his seat.
The Conservative Party is just Labour going the speed limit.
Reform has the same number of seats as Plaid Cymru. Basically they are irrelevant. Sinn Fein has more seats (although they won't serve).
The minor party that actually did gain a lot is the Liberal Democrats. It had the best showing it or its predecessor, the Liberal Party, has had since 1923.
And yet the lib dems got fewer votes than reform.
That's what FPTP will get you when much of an electorate knows how to vote tactically.
Not irrelevant if you look at the vote totals. Labour didn't so much win as all support for Tories collapsed. Reform went from 0 to the 3rd highest number of votes and 4 seats.
So the UK was able to import enough leftist voters before the right wing backlash then?
Real Brit’s should overthrow their government and execute all the socialists. Canadians. Should do the same with Trudeau and his cronies.
Thank god the Biden leftist regime is collapsing under it's own weight or we'd have to do the same.
Regardless, something has to be done about all our free range Marxists here. They’re not just going away.
Just reanimate Cromwell; problem solved.
Such clever branding may have won the election, but it won't translate to a plan for effective government.
"Effective" here meaning lacking in internal opposition to the leadership. If you think that meant policies, you don't understand parliamentary systems.
It seems that there is little difference in nannyism the Tories and Labour-the Brits like being told what to do no matter who is in charge. Maybe they will grant American progs asylum after Trump wins again.
The voters who went Reform did so because they feel betrayed by the Conservatives, which Sunak was seen as a stooge of the globalist faction of the party. There is great concern about the large immigration levels which are overwhelming Britain’s ability to deal with and are changing the culture of the UK in ways that native British find uncomfortable. The fear of authority to be perceived as racist has led to law enforcement ignoring serious crimes against ethnically British people.
They do not see much effective difference between the Tories and Labour.
So the conservatives weren't conservative, and the result is to vote in 'the other guys'?
Damn, whodathunkit?
Except British conservatives have never been “conservative” in the American sense with the exception of Maggie Thatcher and maybe Liz Truss. They are just as meddling in ordinary people’s daily lives as the left is and also support raising taxes and expanding government.
Just like in the Republican Party there are establishmentarian business conservatives who are all about international corporations and globalism, and then there are social conservatives, and they both hate each other.
Also, poor Liz Truss. Just like Trump's first term she didn't realize at the time that the establishment would undermine her every chance it got.
She wrote a book about it.
https://www.aier.org/article/a-former-prime-minister-reveals-why-the-uks-blob-must-be-destroyed/
You have to love a female autist.
Cut to closing scenes of Kubrick's prophetic A Clockwork Orange .
Well I guess we stole the whole left/right thing from the Brits. But with the Liberals and Conservatives something got lost in the translation. Not too surprising. I mean look at labour. They don’t even know how to spell the fucking word.
Well I guess we stole the whole left/right thing from the Brits.
Nope - from the French.
Tories have been in for 14 years. Every green programme, every push of woke agenda in schools, and every surgically transitioned kid, and everyone arrested for speech has taken place under a 'Conservative' government.
Its Uniparty all the way.
Don’t forget illegal immigration.
What do you guys think is happening here? I mean, why is it that periodically voters look past right-wing douchbags that tell you they want to get rid of immigrants and gay people toinstead vote for a boring social democrat who will bring them prosperity and solid governing?
It happened in the United States in 2020. It happened in Brazil in 2023 and it’s happening now in the UK. What gives?
What is it about these populations and those exact years that cause people to vote for people that will put more money in the pockets of the middle class instead of concentrating on the threats that purple haired weirdos who had a dick but now want to play on the girls team pose to the society at large?
Does it have something to do with the implied slogan of the modern social democrat? “Vote for a boring social democrat who will govern the country according to technocratic principles of good government that will bring accountability to the public sphere” I’ll sheepishly admit that— as a social democrat— that slogan probably needs work.
Were you born this stupid, or has it been a work in progress, Shrike?
“Put more money in the pockets of the middle class.”
If your definition of middle class means the trust fund kiddos in Brooklyn who work in media and dine out on mom and dads’ credit card, then yes.
As usual, I don’t know what particular whine right-wingers are talking about.
You’re a stupid shitweasel.
…bring them prosperity and solid governing?
LOL
The Tories have spent the last decade or so in Italy level dysfunction. Calling for the Brexit referendum and then not figuring out what to do with it while screwing around with everything else. So voters are now telling them to fuck off.
What's interesting imo is that this election is precisely what 'first past the post' does with third parties. Duverger's law does tend to show how it concentrates election results and tends to minimize the power of third parties who don't actually focus on districts. But it does not eliminate third parties which is what is claimed by idiots here in the US.
Thirteen parties and six independents are now represented in the Commons
Labour had 9.7 million votes and 411 seats
Tories had 6.8 million votes and 121 seats
LibDems had 3.5 million votes and 71 seats
Scottish National had 710k votes and 9 seats
Sinn Fein had 211 k votes and 7 seats
Reform (born UKIP) had 4.1 million votes and 5 seats
Greens had 1.8 million votes and 4 seats
It's not so much first past the post as the way the constituencies are gerrymandered by Labour and the Cons.
Constituencies aren't gerrymandered in the UK. Their districts are drawn by an independent commission and the groups that 'score'/quantify districts by gerrymandering criteria indicate that the district in UK would be among the least gerrymandered here in the US.
The reason third parties are able to do very well in the UK - and almost every other first past the post country other than the US - is because:
1. districts in the US are fucking huge thus requiring a ton of money to manipulate enough voters to win and third parties don't get the support of the corrupt donor class. A US House district 'represents' 700,000 voters. A UK Commons seat represents 70,000 voters.
2. Ballot access and election rules and such are run 'outside the system' in most non-corrupt countries. Almost think of it like a separate branch of government. In the US, the parties that control the legislature also control redistricting, ballot access, election rules, etc. Golly. No conflict of interest to reduce corruption there.
The US is a fucking corrupted joke of a country when it comes to governance. And now a gerontocracy where we can only elect the senile or the near-senile.
The most 'efficient party' (a potential gerrymandering measure to maximize the number of critter per vote collected) in the UK is Sinn Fein That is not because the UK gerrymanders districts to favor Sinn Fein. It is because Sinn Fein focuses like a laser on running candidates where they might win and gather votes ONLY there so they maximize their influence. The least efficient is Reform/UKIP and Green. That don't much care about districts or representation. They are solely about ideology and mass marketing
You're right. Being Westminster system and all, I assumed they were like the constituencies here in Canada where they gerrymander the fuck out of them.
Gerrymandering is not just an American problem
They should try the system we have here in the United States where we give slightly more electoral influence to urban workers in California and New York than we do for cows that live in Wyoming and South Dakota. America is great because we stick more political power in states with no people in them.
California itself chooses to disenfranchise their own voters – 6+ million of them voted R in 2020 – zero electoral college votes. 75 times more than Wyoming disenfranchised their D’s. So we should give a lot more weight to cows in Wyoming and less weight to cheating assholes in CA.
And CA hasn’t changed the size of its legislature since 1880. Back then, it worked out to about 10,000 peeps per critter. Now, if CA was a country, CA would be the fifth LEAST representative in the world. Alongside such luminaries as India, Afghanistan, the US House itself, and Pakistan. CA is not capable of advising anyone else about anything.
America is great because we stick more political power in states with no people in them.
It’s called protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. A founding principle of the country.
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/preventing-the-tyranny-the-majority
Protecting the minority is fair enough, but why is a tyranny of the minority preferable to a tyranny of the majority?
We get it. You want a Hunger Gamestocracy where a handful of democrat run cities dictate national elections. Which is what I expect form a stupid, evil, Marxist, such as yourself.
But at the same time, they need to feel like the people love them.
Jesse gives himself too little credit.
Without American encouragement, British climate cranks could never have split the Tory vote to such an extent that Even Rees-Moog lost his seat.
Your precious immigrant failed and now you are cheering on the white guy.
So racist.
WTF is that suit? Did he just go through a bird shit wash smearing pigeon droppings all over his suit?
It rains a lot in Britain.
You would think he would have that dry cleaned before appearing on stage. Looks like he just remodeled his flat.
There are three things you can take away from this.
1. The establishmentarians and globalists running the Conservative party were thoroughly rejected. With the complete rejection of Rishi, another WEF Young Global Leader of Tomorrow bites the dust. (Unfortunately Starmer is a member of CIA's Trilateral Commission, so just a lateral move there).
2. Reform actually got seats. Wow! It's obvious that ordinary Britons have had enough of the CINO's.
3. Starmer is a corporatist who publicly identifies as a socialist. The UK will be continue to be ass-raped for the next for years.
In other news from across the pond, crazy populist wants to prevent WW3
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-leaders-outraged-defiant-viktor-orban-visits-putin-peace-mission
The tears of a clown
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-challenges-trump-tell-us-today-how-finish-war
Crazy populist meet the clown
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/viktor-orban-urges-zelensky-quick-ceasefire-first-visit-wars-start
"Conservatives Collapse and Third Parties Surge"
*Third-Reich Parties
The surge is from the various flavours of crypto-Nazis, and their useful idiots.
“Third-Reich Parties”
The DNC and Labour? Because like the Nazi's they're socialists and corporatists too (go on, tell me the Nazis didn't identify as socialists).
He’ll say something like; “Under fascism the state doesn’t own the means of production!”
Ignoring the fact that private industry had to obey the party.
Cuckoo!
Trump wins
“America is doomed”
Socialist advocating green world fantasy wins
“Yeah we’ll see what happens”
Is there no limit to reason’s man crush on endless immigration?
They are not card-carrying Libertinians for nothing.
Reform came in third.
And got 4 seats.
Welcome to Ingsoc.
They increased the ration of votes from 30 to 25.
So? For years the Liberals and later the LibDems would do reasonably well by percentage of votes cast but would do really badly in terms of seats, owing to FPTP. They didn't get much sympathy. That a new party breaking away from the Tories didn't get seats in proportion to their votes, well, such is life (with FPTP, etc.)
I wonder if Britons had more civil liberties back in the day when the monarch had more real power?
A few benefits of monarchy: the king has to consider the long term consequences of his actions, the king is trained from birth to lead the kingdom, and occasionally you get a king who is a good person, and not a power-mad tyrant.
Vs. democracy, where the leader considers only the next few years, no training is required, and you only get power-mad tyrants.
Democracy is just a sugar -coated form of mob rule.
The new guy's name sure sounds like a nazi! Keir Starmer
Der Starmer? He's actually married to a Jewish woman, and has Jewish kids.
There were something like a dozen cabinet members who lost their seats. One casualty was Liz Truss, who won her seat easily five years ago. I was kind of hoping Sunak himself would lose his seat.
The most impressive achievement, though was by Jonathan Ashworth, the Labour shadow paymaster general, who actually managed to lose his seat in the midst of a historic Labour landslide. (He got 67% in 2019, when the other party got a landslide.)
Yes - the pro-Gaza support in some constituencies was disturbing.
There was no 'pro-Gaza' support. Only anti-Israel support.
From the man who said that the LibDems would be losing seats.
Pro-Gaza candidates squeeze Labour vote in some constituencies
Before I moved to the US, I had lived in Guildford (then solid Tory), Wimbledon (solid Tory) and Kensington and Chelsea (solid Tory). Now the first two went to the Lib Dems (nor for the first time in the case of Guildford, not sure about Wimbledon). and a redrawn Chelsea district went Labour.
A friend who’s a conservative peer (and who therefore isn’t permitted to vote) had told me last year that he expected a collapse of the Tory party, and that in his opinion the Tory party needed a collapse and a rebuild. He is a staunch Thatcherite and Brexiteer, fwiw.
I wasn’t entirely sure, but I was certainly pleased to see my LibDems do so well.
It looks like they finally started focusing on districts rather than an unfocused general/ideology campaign
Interesting aside. The LibDen anthem is an old Georgist song called the land about Land Value Taxation. Dating back to when Churchill was a Liberal and tried to implement an LVT
I don't recall ever hearing it! The only music I associated with the Lib(Dem)s is part of the opening of the last movement of Rachmaninoff's 1st symphony, used in Party Political Broadcasts.
The common theme is that the party in power, gets expelled and the leading opposition power gains power. This is not a left/right scenario as much as an anti-incumbent movement. In France the far left liberal parties colluded to prevent right from gaining power. It will be interesting to see how long the far left can play nice with each other and how long it will take them to bury the economy of France.