Let the change begin: a new era in British politics 2024

Hello again guys, I published my last piece before we received the official results of the 2024 UK elections and now that the results are official, I would like to deal with a few more issues and answer a few more questions. This was truly a historical victory for Labour and whilst I didn't vote for Labour, I am really pleased to see a change of government at last. 

Q: Why didn't you like the previous Tory government? 

A: It is a combination of Brexit and lies. It all started back in 2015 when David Cameron, then Tory PM won the election with a small majority but was taken aback at how large the share of vote was for UKIP (the UK Independence Party whose sole agenda is Brexit) and so he offered a referendum on the issue in 2016 to put the issue to bed once and for all, expecting the results to be close but for the UK to stay in the EU. He was wrong, it was close: but it was 52% to 48% to leave and it was a gamble he lost. Now the problem with the referendum was that it was no more than a protest vote: we have a huge problem with wealth inequality in the UK, overall the country is rich but the wealth is not shared equally - the rich keep getting richer and the poor get poorer. Leaving the EU isn't going to change any of that at all, but for many it was a protest vote just to show the government that they were unhappy with the status quo. This is when populist politics comes into play - some politicians hijacked the whole EU issue, promising these voters that all their problems would be solved as long as the UK left the EU and they would somehow just get richer with Brexit. Solving wealth inequality is a really difficult issue as the UK has been a very unequal country in this aspect for not just decades, but centuries. When Cameron realized his gamble had gone drastically wrong, he simply resigned and what followed was a period of chaos when subsequent PMs (May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak) couldn't deliver the kind of Brexit that they had promised the voters, instead they blamed other factors like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine for the economic problems that followed Brexit, leaving those who voted for Brexit a lot worse off after Brexit. But most of all, it was just the lies that Boris Johnson told during the pandemic that led to his downfall - whilst the rest of us in the country were observing a strict lockdown, he was having parties in his office and it was clear that none of the people in his government were interested in following the rules: from his advisor Dominic Cummings to his health secretary at the time Matt Hancock, they clearly felt that the rules and the law didn't apply to them whilst the rest of us civilians were punished if we breached the lockdown rules. It was such hypocrisy that finally even made his most ardent supporters realize that Johnson had made too many mistakes - ultimately he jumped before he was pushed but he was replaced by Liz Truss, who was our shortest serving PM in history yet she managed to crash the economy in a few short weeks, you couldn't make this up if you wanted to. Sunak and May were slightly better than Johnson and Truss, but it was just one disaster after another with the last Tory government, so I am delighted to see them lose this time as I am fed up and sick of their deceit and dishonesty. 

Q: But this is democracy, Johnson did win comfortably at the last elections in 2019, so whilst you may not like him personally, he was handed the mandate to rule by the people of this country, what do you say to that? 

A: Right and that's a source of my frustration: you see, I'm a businessman.. I run my own company, I go through loads of business proposals and plans all the time; what I have to do is verify if these plans are credible or not. So if a company claims that this new venture is going to make them $10 million in the first year of operation, I would go through their business plans to check if this is a credible claim or not and it is a complex process that most people can't do, so that's why I am able to make so much money in the world of corporate finance. So when a political party publishes their manifesto, I would apply the same principles and see if their plans stack up - so for example, if they promise to build new homes to solve the housing crisis, my first question will be where they are going to find the money to do so? Has this been costed? There is not point claiming that you'd like to carry out all of these ambitious plans when you have no idea where you're going to find the money to fund these plans. But this is not something that a lot of voters do, they don't know how to do what I do, so they don't question all of these claims made by the politicians and it is a form of scam when you deliberately mislead people like that. Hence my frustration with the democratic process is how so many politicians like Johnson and Farage lie to those who are too stupid to verify their claims, such is the nature of populist politics. It is a blend of exploitation and deceit and this is not how politics should be. Let's take Farage for example, there are illegal immigrants who make the dangerous crossing from France to England across the English channel in small boats. Farage said he would get the royal marines to deport these migrants immediately back to France the moment they land in England. This is the kind of simplistic argument that would appeal to the voter who wants simple solutions to complex issues. My first reaction was, how is this going to work? Have you asked the French government if they would allow you to do so and on what terms? How do you intend to work with the French government on this matter? Are you going to provoke a massive diplomatic row with France over this? What if some of these migrants have a genuine case to claim asylum in the UK? But of course, we all know that such statements are designed to press the buttons of certain kinds of voters that Reform are looking to target in this election and they love everything Farage is saying. They haven't learnt any lessons from the Brexit fiasco, such as Johnson's claim that £350m was sent to the EU every week and that money would be spent on the NHS instead after Brexit - did that happen? Of course not, Boris is a complete liar who peddles populist lies, but his supporters were just way too stupid to realize that. This is why people like me are getting very frustrated with the state of politics; but with Starmer in charge, we can see a return to integrity and honesty in politics. 

Q: Why is this victory by Labour so historic? 

A: You have to compare this result with the results of the last election in 2019 - back in 2019, it was a Corbyn vs Johnson match. Johnson trounced Corbyn, Labour had their worst results in modern times and you had to go back to 1935 to find an even worse result for Labour in the elections. The political landscape was very different in terms of the parties back in 1935, so it was an car crash of a dumpster fire result for Labour then, they were slaughtered at the polls, the public made it very clear how much they hated Labour then. To have gone from that cataclysmic catastrophe to the victory they managed to achieve in 2024 by turning the tables on the Tories who had their worst ever result in history - this is nothing short of a miracle to have turned things around in one election cycle. They didn't just close the gap, they completely turned the tables on the Tories and credit has got to be given to Starmer who has very successfully leading the Labour party to this victory. I know some people will argue that the Tories had been so unpopular this time round, Starmer didn't even have to do that much to win this election and the Tories were responsible for Starmer's historic victory, but if you were to cast your mind back to 2019, many people were frustrated with Johnson at that time but Corbyn was just so unappealing that he rendered Labour completely unelectable and the results showed how Labour was completely out of touch with the public sentiment at that point. The important lesson to learn is that politics is a popularity contest because a lot of voters simply don't bother reading the manifestos and making an effort to learn more about the politicians - they will take a cursory look at what is in the news or on social media and form an opinion after watching a 30 seconds interview on their phone on their way home from work o the train. This is why first impressions are so vital in politics today, you are dealing with a whole new generation of voters with a very short attention span and you have got to get them to like you very quickly when they stumble upon you on social media. Starmer isn't that great at social media but at least we know he has a great time behind him; whilst he can never become popular on social media, at least the Labour party realizes how important this aspect of their campaigning is and they have managed to at least given Starmer the right kind of support to help him in this aspect - you can just hire teams of experts for this, Starmer is a busy man who should be left to do what he does best whilst we let the social media team handle things like that. In the business world, you wouldn't have the CEOs try to handle the social media and corporate communications themselves, they would just hire the very best experts and pay them loads of money to do a great job of it - why should politics be any different then?

Q: What lessons can be learnt from this 2024 UK general election then? 

A: Here's one for the Democratic party in America - you need a leader who is electable. Biden has already messed up too badly at the last debate to have a realistic chance of beating Trump, it is time to dump him and get Harris to replace him at the next election. You can't ignore the evidence at this stage and think that you can come back from this. This is a car crash in slow motion as we still have a few months before the American election in November and it will be painful to watch. Let's contrast this with a rising star in French politics: Jordan Bardella who came close to becoming the next prime minister of France serving along side Marine Le Pen (but that didn't haappen - they lost the second round of elections). He is 28, young, good looking, understands social media as he grew up with it and knows how to communicate well on social media to reach his audience. But wait, Macron is also relatively young as well at 46 (oh gosh he is younger than me) and has already won two terms as president - he became president at the age of 39 so he has practically given Bardella the roadmap to success. Do I agree with Bardella's brand of right wing politics? No, but do I like the way he campaigns and connects to the younger French voters? Absolutely, he is a very intelligent man who understands how this process works in sharp contrast to Biden, who is in complete denial on the very same issue. I'd like to think that another important lesson to learn here is the limits of populist politics - yes you can easily fool the voters into giving you their vote by simply telling them what they want to hear but if you do not deliver on your promises, if their standard of living does not improve, then they will vote for someone else at the next election. Politicians try to get around this by making vague promises like increasing spending on health care: you're unlikely to see the direct impact of that unless you need to visit the hospital regularly or depend on the NHS for some kind of treatment on a regular basis. But still, you can't run away from the cost of living crisis - let's take something as basic as cooking oil for example. Before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, it was possible to get it for as little as about £1 per litre at the supermarket; now the cheapest you can find is about £1.85 to £2 per litre and that's a massive increase for working class folks who don't earn a lot of money. Hence it is simple, very basic things like that which motivate voters during an election and you can't talk your way out of this - the politicians have to come up with concrete plans to deal with these complex problems. Let's see how Farage performs now he has become an MP, he has spent years making ridiculous claims and wild promises he has never intended to keep, but now he will be expected to deliver on those promises he has made - so this will be interesting to see how badly he fails in this process or if he will be able to somehow deliver on some of those promises. 

Q: Who will take over the Tory party now? 

A: That's a good question, it is a really difficult job with no simple solutions. Starmer got rid of Corbyn and that really did the trick, he purged some people from the party and managed to assemble a team of very credible people to take over from the old guard. But in the case of whoever is taking over from Sunak, the answer isn't simply, get rid of Sunak. Sunak is going to leave anyway, but it is a question of dealing with the issue of Reform splitting the right wing vote. How do you deal with that challenge? Do you become as right wing or even more right wing than Reform to convince your existing members not to desert you for Reform? But if you go too far, you risk losing the centrists to parties like the Liberal Democrats or even Labour, so where do you find the balance to maximize your appeal, since you can't possibly be everything to everyone? There is a lot of uncertainty right now for the future direction of the party given that some members think they need to be even more right wing to respond to the rise of Reform, whilst others feel that they should do the opposite - let Reform be demonized as the far right party of people who are unreasonable and unrealistic, whilst the Tories can remain as the acceptable version of moderate right wing politics in the UK. The big question would be which approach would enable the Tory party to rebuild itself to get back to where it was, to be electable again? Even the Tory insiders aren't quite sure, so what is likely to happen in this case is that the contenders would think, "I might let someone else try the leadership first, let them figure out what work, what doesn't work, when they make a mistake, then I can jump in and say, I knew that wouldn't work. Let me take over at that stage once they have made those mistakes, so by process of elimination, I would have a lot more clarity about which direction to take the party. It's easier to let someone else make the mistakes first before I take over later on." Sunak has resigned as leader of the Tories but it is still unclear when we will have a new leader as that process can take a while. It is a bit of a poisoned chalice right now to take over and I suspect we might see a repeat of what happened after Cameron resigned - it was widely expected that Johnson would take over but then that didn't happen. He held back and let Theresa May take over first, knowing that she would struggle to get Brexit done. She floundered, tried her best and eventually gave up; that was when Johnson knew it was the right time to take over. We might see a repeat of that but we can't rule anything out at this stage. Will Farage want to join forces with the Tories at a time when they are so vulnerable and weak? Or will he play the waiting game and simply wait till the Tories come begging in a few years' time when they have tried everything and have totally run out of options? 

Q: Just how powerful is Farage now? Is he the king/queen maker or will he be the next king?

A: Note that Reform only won five seats compared to the Tories who won 121 seats. But they did take 14.3% of the total vote share compared to the Tories who took 23.7% - being a geek obsessed with statistics, I find this most interesting because it tells a very interesting story about the situation. The combined total vote share for the two parties is 38%. which is higher than Labour's 33.7% - if the Tories and Reform joined forces, that would force a similar left-wing coalition to increase their vote share. So a possible partner for Labour would be the Liberal Democrats, they won 72 seats in this selection with a vote share of 12.2%, they are a centrist party but the current Labour government is pretty close to them - Corbyn was a lot more left wing whilst Starmer is a centrist. So if we were to add the Labour and Liberal Democrat vote share together, then it would take them up to 45.9% and that is still more than the right wing vote combined share of 38%. So I wouldn't overestimate the power of Farage, it is not like if he join forces with the Tories, they can win the next election; that would simply force a similar kind of coalition on the left. But of course, this result was what the Reform party could achieve with very little preparation as Sunak announced the election a lot earlier than expected, hoping to catch his rivals off guard and unprepared. So at the next election, whilst Reform will have a lot more time to organize a better campaign, they would also be judged on what they have delivered in the five seats they have, so it is an unknown. If Reform can deliver on the promises that they have made, then the Tories would be keen to join forces with them. But if they fail to deliver, then they would be judged on that failure and nobody would want to vote for them regardless of how they campaign, hence we don't know what will happen until we give them that chance to prove themselves to the public. 

Q: Why has the UK lurched to the left by electing Labour when most of Europe has lurched to the right? 

A: Allow me to start off my stating that the stance of the UK hasn't really changed much - we're a very divided country. Allow me to use the Brexit referendum result of 52% vs 48% to show how divided we are. Given the way our elections have this "first past the post" (FPTP) system, it only takes a small shift to deliver huge changes in the results especially in the marginal seats, where the difference between winning and losing can be as little as a few hundred votes only. So it is hardly a seismic shift in the political mood of the country if just a few hundred people decide to vote differently this time, even though those little ripples of changes all over the country did lead to this massive victory for Labour in the end. The UK is facing the same economic problems as other countries in Europe - unemployment, rising prices, the cost of living crisis, housing shortages, law and order, finding enough money for all the public services to name just a few. The Tories had already been in power for 14 long years and haven't managed to solve these problems for the UK, so the logical solution to that situation is to let the opposition try something different to solve those issues. After all, as the very famous saying goes: the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. This isn't some kind of fundamental shift in the mindset of the British voters, rather it is simply a calculated approach to finding the solution to the problems facing the UK. If the plumber you hired fails to fix the leak in your kitchen but makes the problem a lot worse, would you hire that same plumber again or would you hire someone else? The logical answer would be, "anyone but that useless joker, remember that awful mess he made the last time!" Take France for example, Macron's party is a centrist party and he won the run-off against Le Pen from the far right in the last presidential election. Hence if Macron fails to solve the problems that the French people expect him to, then they would be default vote for the other party in order to try something different and that is why France is lurching to the right. I suppose you could argue that it would have been possible to try an extreme left-wing party instead of one from the far right for an alternative to Macron? Well possibly, but Macron is already slightly too left wing for some French voters, that's why the pendulum has swung to the right in the case of France. If you look at the history of a lot of Western democracies, you will observe this similar pendulum swing from left to right and back again. My point is simple: don't read too much into these results, the mood on the ground here in Britain really hasn't changed that much in terms how the left and right wing balance of opinion on the ground. This result is more a reflection of how the people have been fed up with the previous government's incompetence rather than because they had somehow become a lot more left wing in the run up to this election, Labour's share of the overall vote has only increased from 32.9% to 33.7%  this time - an increase of just 0.8%. 

Q: Wait what, an increase of 0.8% only? Not even 1% But you said this was a historic victory for Labour?

A: Yes, thanks to the FPTP system, we have this kind of seemingly bizarre results - you don't need to win an outright majority of over 50% in this kind of election, you just need to be the candidate with the most number of votes. Since the right wing vote was split between the Tories and Reform, that paved the way for a very easy victory for Labour in this election. So if you combined the votes between Tories + Reform, the combined total would often be more than enough to beat Labour in most seats. The left wing vote however didn't get split with other left wing parties, that's because the left wing voters would often vote tactically to prevent the right from winning. So if the voters knew there was a credible candidate on the right, they would rally behind the left wing candidate with the best chance of winning to put up the best possible fight to ensure that the right wing candidate doesn't win. Those on the left are more flexible this way, as long as the right wing candidate doesn't win, they don't mind which party their MPs are from (as long as they are from the left). Clearly, the right wing voters haven't organized themselves to vote tactically this time, which often meant that neither the Tories nor Reform won, despite earning more votes combined than the Labour winner. A good example of how this worked in practice was during the second round of the 2024 French election, when tactical voting denied the right wing National Rally an outright majority. I can talk a lot more about the French election but this post is about the UK elections. 

Q: Why didn't the right wing voters unite this time then? After all, tactical voting is nothing new.

A: This is because they are not a cohesive entity - they are extremely diverse. Farage won in Clacton which is one of the poorest areas in the country and so many people in London just rolled their eyes when he won there, like of course poor people are going to vote for Reform, they want to blame everyone else (especially immigrants) for their poverty. But then again, as I work in finance, the vast majority of the people in my industry are all very right wing and support the Tories. So we're talking about both the top 5% richest and the bottom 5% poorest of our society both supporting the right at the same time when they really have absolutely nothing in common - why is this the case? This is because one of the basic principles of left wing politics is to tax the rich more heavily and use that money to help the poor, by redistributing the wealth this way we can create a more equal society. Rich people in business really do not like that idea - their reaction to that is, "I worked so hard to earn my wealth, why am I being penalized for being a hardworking member of society who has contributed so much to the economy? I didn't steal the money, I didn't rob anyone. Yet you want to take the money I have earned away from me to give to some unemployed bums in Clacton who can't even be asked to get a job?" People in the business community believe in lower taxes to reward those who are economically productive and they're never going to get that from the left wing politicians, so they turn to the right for a fiscally conservative government for lower taxes. You have to bear in mind the fact that you can be socially conservative, economically conservative or both - ticking any of those boxes would be sufficient to put you in the right wing camp but that means that you have an unlikely group of people in the same camp who have little in common with each other. Whereas on the other side of the political divide, because the richest and the poorest in society have moved to the right, those in the middle naturally gravitate towards the left and center. Of course, I realize that I have been focusing on voters' attitude towards economic issues - there are also all the social factors. So if you take a working class voter who doesn't earn much money for example, they may like the idea of a Robin Hood style left wing government who will tax the rich and redistribute that money to the poor, but they may also be xenophobic and resent immigrants and if they feel that way, then they would vote for a party like Reform or the Tories who are both anti-immigration. Hence in this case, it is a question of which issue is more important to them and thus they might have to compromise by brushing aside their feelings on one issue when they eventually cast their votes. 

Q: What about you then, are you left or right wing? 

A: The short answer is that I'm a centrist, the longer answer is that I am socially very liberal but when it comes to economic issues, I'm far more right wing. I am a gay man. thus naturally on social issues like gay rights, equality for women, protection against any kind of bigotry and discrimination, abortion, the environment, climate change and censorship, I'm very left wing. When it comes to economic issues however, I am a lot more right wing - I am a businessman who pays a lot of taxes but I don't really receive that much in return from the government, unlike say a poorer working class person who is entitled to claim all kinds of benefits for their family if they fall into the low-income category. I do benefit from the government's actions in a more indirect way, like they provide a stable environment for me to run my business, compare that to a working class family who is able to receive many different kinds of income support for everything from housing to childcare to free meals for their kids at school, so obviously, I am a lot more right wing in this department. It's not like I don't believe in equality, but I like to have more control over how my wealth is shared for example, by making a donation to a charity of my choice rather than simply seeing a large portion of my earnings go to taxes and hoping that the government will do the right thing with it. Thus on balance, that makes me a centrist (if that is the best way to describe it), even if I am clearly very liberal in some aspects but also very conservative in other aspects. 

Q: I suppose those on the left are happy with this result and those on the right are angry? 

A: It is not so simple: a lot of it will depend on whether or not you're a "glass half full" or "glass half empty" kind of person. I am really quite pleased with the result - not so much because I have my perfect government, but more because I think this government is really going to be much better than the last one and that is reason enough for me to be happy. But I do know that there are some left wing voters who don't like Starmer as he is not left wing enough for them and so they would much rather have someone like Corbyn as PM because Corbyn is a lot more left wing. I think people like that choose to make themselves miserable but they are being extremely unrealistic, sure you can have this vision of what your ideal, perfect government ought to be like, but what are the chances of you getting what you want and does anyone really give a shit if you didn't get what you want? Yes, at this point, you can tell I am talking about someone I know (a friend on Facebook, though I've not met him in years) who went on Facebook and did this massive rant about how he is upset that Starmer is now our new PM and how he would've wanted someone a lot more left wing. Thus whether you're happy or not with this outcome has far more to do with your personality, rather than your politics. By that same token, some of my friends on the right are actually pretty okay with this result as they could see this coming - nobody expected Sunak to stand a chance in this election, so the results were not a surprise and some people feel that this is exactly what the Tories need right now to reinvent themselves rather than just continue as they were before. When you are forced to take a long hard look in the mirror like that, you can take that opportunity to really achieve great things if you are determined to avoid the mistakes of the past. It's like an alcoholic or drug addict hitting rock bottom and deciding to make a brand new start by changing their ways; so with cautious optimism, when you have hit rock bottom, the only way is up. 

Q: How do you think the markets would react to this result in the long run?

A: Let's look at the reactions of the markets first as that's the most honest, unfiltered reaction - if this outcome is expected to bring bad news to the British economy, then the markets would fall and the pound would devalue against other major currencies. That didn't happen, the markets barely moved and the pound remained mostly unchanged. I didn't expect the results of this election to some how deliver a magical boost to the economy and the pound since we all knew way in advance that Labour was going to win by a very comfortable margin, but the fact that things remained stable is still good news as it is the kind of stability we need. Contrast this to the way Truss totally crashed the economy and the pound within weeks of taking power with her ludicrous promises of tax cuts, that spooked the economy as everyone realized that Truss had delusional and had no idea how to run the economy but she only had one agenda: to please her donors and most hardcore right wing supporters. You should bear in mind that this Labour victory didn't come as a surprise at all, opinion polls are conducted regularly even when the government hasn't called an election and the governments often use these polls as a gauge to decide if and when is a suitable time to call and election to maximize their chances of winning. So the results were hardly a surprise this time, let's compare this to when some bad news hits out of the blue, like when the earthquake struck Fukushima out of the blue in 2011 triggering that nuclear disaster, the markets in Japan reacted very badly to that as everyone was blindsided - it was impossible to predict earthquakes like that. But in this case, Labour's victory was predicted so the markets had already gotten used to the fact that Starmer was going to be our next PM. Hence in this case, a lack of reaction is actually a good outcome. We have had so much turmoil under the last government - some were due to external factors like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, others were due to the idiotic mistakes of Truss crashing the economy, stability is what we need right now and that's what we can get from this new Labour government who were elected on a very sensible manifesto and have a credible team to govern the country, thus I am optimistic that we will enter a period of slow but sustained growth under Labour for the next five years. 

Q: What was your favourite moment of this election? 

A: Oh it has got to be Sunak getting absolutely drenched in a torrential downpour when he made the speech to call the election. He claimed that Labour didn't have a plan for the country but his team didn't check the weather forecast, didn't prepare an umbrella for him - he was left there, in the pouring rain struggling to get to the end of his speech. It wasn't raining when he first started, but  by the time he finished, it was absolutely pouring and he was soaked. We also heard someone play the song Things Can Only Get Better from outside the gates of number 10 Downing Street, that's the Labour anthem for their last big landslide victory in 1997 and it's one of those comedy moments that will be remembered for a long time to come, that's what we will remember Sunak for in this election. The Tories made a whole loads of terrible gaffes and had some terrible interviews which were just painful to watch, but this was the only one that left me rolling on the floor laughing so hard. It was comedy gold - even the reporters there had umbrellas, but Sunak and his team didn't. 

Q: How long will Starmer last as PM? 

A: I think he will be there for a long time. Margaret Thatcher lasted 11 years, Tony Blair holds the record and he lasted 13 long years and you have to go all the way back to Churchill to find someone who lasted that long - Churchill's case was quite different, he chalked up 9 years as PM but that was 5 + 4 in two separate terms, interrupted by a defeat at the hands of Clement Atlee immediately after WW2. Liz Truss was an outlier, having last just an embarrassing44 days before being ousted by her own party for being woefully useless. Most British PMs in recent years lasted between 2 to 7 years so I anticipate that Starmer would last at least 7 years as our PM and that would bring a period of much needed peace and stability to the UK. Starmer is currently 61 and he is older than most of our PMs in recent times, but then again, his age shouldn't work against him as long as he remains sharp - just look at what is happening in the USA now with Biden. I certainly hope to have retired by the time I am 55-60, but Starmer is now starting the most important job of his life at 61. 

That's it from me for now on this topic, I'm sure there will be other questions as the new government emerges and I'll be pleased to answer your questions, feel free to leave a comment below and we'll chat about it. Many thanks for reading.