logo
The year that permanently shattered our political mainstream

The year that permanently shattered our political mainstream

Telegraph11 hours ago
Normalcy favours Labour. The conventional course of events is for a party to win a general election, run into trouble, lose popularity, grit its teeth, recover somewhat – and go on to be re-elected. Only once since the Second World War, during the roller-coaster 1970s, did a Government fail to win again: in 1974, the Conservatives' stiff, luckless Edward Heath was narrowly defeated by Labour's manoeuvrable, wily Harold Wilson.
Wilson had lost to Heath four years earlier, but had won in 1966. Sir Alec Douglas Home had lost to Wilson in 1964, but the Conservatives had won a third successive election victory in 1959 under Harold Macmillan. Clement Attlee had lost to Sir Winston Churchill in 1951, but had won a year earlier for Labour in 1950.
The same pattern was observable almost half a century on. Sir John Major lost to Tony Blair in 1997, but the Conservatives had won four elections in a row previously, three of them under Margaret Thatcher. Gordon Brown lost in 2010 – turned out by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but Blair had previously won three elections of his own.
Which takes us to Sir Keir Starmer – victorious in 2024 after four terms of Conservative or Tory-led government. At 172 seats, his majority was only seven fewer than Tony Blair's 179 seat margin in 1997. A year into his premiership, he has good reason, if his history is anything to go by, to look forward to the next election with confidence.
But history repeats itself until it suddenly stops doing so. And the question that the Prime Minister must surely be asking himself this weekend, as he reflects on the implosion of his authority this week, is whether the orderly, stable, predictable Britain of those election results is becoming more like, say, Italy – a country in which established political parties can unexpectedly collapse.
For they hold firm only if their base is solid. What is Labour's? The clue is in the name: Labour, traditionally, was the party of the working class, drawn from the trade unions, in a country that was largely white. Their rivals, the Conservatives, stood for capital, property and, in the broadest of terms, the middle class.
Such was the politics of the post-war settlement. In retrospect, it can be seen to have been quietly fading for three quarters of a century – since 1962, to be precise, when a Liberal by-election victory in Orpington heralded the erosion of the two party monopoly in England. Winnie Ewing signalled the rise of the SNP in Scotland five years later, winning a by-election in Hamilton.
In the first of 1974's two general elections, the Liberals won six million votes and the SNP gained seven seats. By 1997, the age of three party politics in England had come: the Liberal Democrats won 46 seats. Ten years later, the SNP formed its first Government in Scotland itself, and has held power there ever since.
Where is Labour's base in this brave new world? Much of the white working class doesn't vote at all: only three in five voters turned out to the polls last year. Older, working class, and former Leave voters are deserting Labour for Reform. Younger urban voters, many of them women, are opting instead for the Greens, Liberal Democrats and independents.
In short, the coalition that Sir Keir built was shallow as it was wide – and the 411 seats he won may turn out to matter less than the 34 per cent of the vote he won it with: the lowest proportion of the vote for any winning party since 1945. Indeed, the combined share for the two main parties, at 57 per cent, was its lowest in modern times.
Labour could recover, as history suggests that they will. Or a crisis in the markets could somehow rescue the Conservatives – establishing them in the public imagination as the party least likely to over-spend, over-tax and over-borrow (despite their record in Government in the wake of Brexit).
But the electoral trends of this fragmenting politics suggest a hung Parliament – especially if, on the one hand, Labour clings to economic orthodoxy and, on the other, Jeremy Corbyn's new party gains significant traction and adds definition to the emerging coalition of Greens, Islamists and unreconstructed socialists.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives lost control of all 15 councils they were defending in May's local elections, have fallen from 24 per cent in the polls last year to 17 per cent, and face hazardous local elections next year – especially in the east of England, where Reform is very strong. As matters stand, they are set to be the smaller of Britain's two Right-wing parties.
The last major political party to collapse here as a governing force was the Liberals – dominant for much of the nineteenth century, displaced on the Left by Labour in the twentieth. 'To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness,' wrote Oscar Wilde in The Importance of Being Earnest.
One wonders what he would have said of an age that sees the loss of not one but two great political parties as dominant governing forces. It hasn't happened yet and may not happen at all. But a combination of fractured continental-style politics, with a multiplicity of parties and first past the post are set to produce unsettling results.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

QUENTIN LETTS: Step forward Comrades Corbyn and Sultana! It demands a special sort of dimness and self regard to make such a bungle of the launch of a new political party
QUENTIN LETTS: Step forward Comrades Corbyn and Sultana! It demands a special sort of dimness and self regard to make such a bungle of the launch of a new political party

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

QUENTIN LETTS: Step forward Comrades Corbyn and Sultana! It demands a special sort of dimness and self regard to make such a bungle of the launch of a new political party

Historians may – or, there again, may not – record that the Left's tectonic plates shifted at 8.11pm on Thursday. That was when Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana pressed the button on her electronic device and posted a message on X to say she was quitting Labour to 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Jeremy Corbyn. 'The time is now,' announced Comrade Sultana, 31. 'We are not going to take this any more. In 2029 the choice will be stark: socialism or barbarism.' Barbarism! The balloon had gone up. Leftist civil war had been declared. It was 'action stations' and 'en garde' and 'red alert', with the emphasis on the red. A Leftist breakaway movement had been expected for months, rumours building like summer thunder clouds. On Wednesday evening, with Labour rocked by parliamentary divisions over welfare cuts and with crisis surrounding the future of that leaky bucket Rachel Reeves, Mr Corbyn revealed an inch of ankle on ITV. Interviewer Robert Peston asked the former Labour leader – who was ejected from his old party by his onetime lieutenant Sir Keir Starmer – if he was really going to start a new party. The Che Guevara of Islington North stroked his beardlet, sat back on his sofa with just a hint of prosperous tummy, and replied that there was 'a thirst' for such a venture and more would be disclosed anon. Twenty-four hours later young Zarah had activated the fission. Kaboom. The Great Leftist Split had been triggered. Or perhaps not. As yesterday's brave new dawn broke in north London it became evident that a small mushroom cloud had formed over Islington. Mr Corbyn, 76, had exploded in the most terrible bate. Ms Sultana, with youthful impatience, had jumped the gun. The dramatic reveal had been bungled. In political terms it was a case of what old-fashioned doctors used to call ejaculatio praecox. Despite Ms Sultana's 'the time is now' claim, the time was meant to have been later, possibly on the eve of the Labour Party conference in the autumn when it might have had considerably more impact. But now the semi-secret was out, and it was running up and down the cloisters of Westminster with nothing to cover its modesty. They may be socialist egalitarians but Lefties are just as good at hating each other as Brexity Right-wingers. If anything, they do it with less humour. You only had to look at the sulphurous scenes in the Commons during Tuesday's welfare debate. Even after the Government had caved in, Labour MPs such as Andy McDonald, Imran Hussain and Ian Lavery were foul to the Government. What they now must think of Zarah Sultana, one dreads to think. To launch a political party is quite something. To bungle the launch of one is even more of an achievement. It demands a special type of dimness, muddle and vaunting self-regard. Ms Sultana seems to have thought herself a sufficiently big raisin to break the news herself, only to have her veteran co-conspirator rage at her impetuosity. Once he had recovered his equilibrium Mr Corbyn himself issued a message on X yesterday lunchtime to say that 'real change is coming' (NB not yet) and that Ms Sultana would 'help us build a real alternative' to Labour. You will notice that is not quite the same as confirming that she would be 'co-leading' the thing. Mr Corbyn's message added that 'the democratic foundations of a new kind of party will soon take shape'. Translation: you can forget about calling yourself a co-leader, young lady, until you have been voted as such by the new party's rank and file members. This new party does not yet have a public name so for the time being we should perhaps call it The People's Front of Judaea. This is not some jibe at Ms Sultana and Mr Corbyn's trenchant, some might say excessive, support for Palestinian independence. The People's Front of Judaea is the knot of political obsessives in Monty Python's Life Of Brian film, set in 1st century AD Jerusalem. When asked if they are the Judaean People's Front, or indeed the Popular Front, these scowling nutters become infuriated. 'The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f****** Judaean People's Front!' spits the ringleader, Reg. These days Reg might possibly be called Jeremy. Monty Python's satire harpoons the fragmentising nature of party politics. With each bifurcation, each indignant walk-out by politicians in proud possession of their most precious principles, movements become smaller and rivalries only increase. Eventually you end up with tiny cabals of harrumphing prigs who are more concerned about their pet causes than they are in trying to form a broad party that might, to quote the Book of Common Prayer, allow the country to be 'godly and quietly governed'. Quietness, however, is not really Zarah Sultana's thing. When she speaks in the House of Commons it is invariably in an urgent, tremulous voice, as if she needs to dash to the lavatory the moment her speech has ended. This one is a quavery commissar, making blood-curdling accusations about capitalism and Zionism and – dark organ chords, please – the dreaded Tories. Anyone who is not as Left-wing as her is, as she might say, 'barbaric'. All this is tremendously lively on social media feeds. She flies off the bat in a TikTok video or what-have-you. But in the flesh, for anything more than a 30-second burst, its rigid insistence can become tiresome. Mr Corbyn may have a public reputation for political extremism but in the flesh he is a less intense personality. He is softly spoken, can occasionally be droll, even charming. I'd say it is not impossible that, while he probably admires Sister Zarah's energy, he finds her rather exhausting. As might the voters. Put it like this: you would not want to share a space rocket with Zarah Sultana. She'd hog the oxygen. And this, perhaps, is the delusional weakness of modern politics and may explain the atomisation of both Left (Labour's vote being eaten into by independents, by George Galloway's Workers Party and soon by the Corbyn start-up) and Right (the Conservatives have been lopped in half by Nigel Farage's Reform).

After the biggest Russian blitz yet, Trump promises air defences for Ukraine - a day after 'very disappointing' phone call with Putin
After the biggest Russian blitz yet, Trump promises air defences for Ukraine - a day after 'very disappointing' phone call with Putin

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

After the biggest Russian blitz yet, Trump promises air defences for Ukraine - a day after 'very disappointing' phone call with Putin

Donald Trump yesterday agreed to help Ukraine boost its aerial defences after Russia launched its biggest assault of the war. The US President made the pledge after a 'very disappointing' phone call with Vladimir Putin on Thursday night, with Russia launching the barrage hours after. Mr Trump spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky yesterday and seemingly vowed to 'strengthen the protection' of Ukraine's skies. They also discussed joint industrial projects. The two leaders, who have previously traded insults and fell out spectacularly at the White House earlier this year, spoke at length hours after Putin fired a record 539 drones and 11 missiles at Ukraine. The bombardment left at least one dead and 23 injured in Kyiv. The attack, described as 'absolutely horrible' by Ukraine's foreign minister Andrii Sybiha, was launched after the call between Mr Trump and Putin, with the Russian leader refusing to agree to a ceasefire. Mr Trump, who has been criticised for not being tough enough with Putin to force him to make concessions, said: 'I don't think he's there. I don't think he's looking to stop this fighting.' While no specific commitments emerged yesterday, it appears the US is willing to give Ukraine additional air defence systems as Mr Zelensky said on social media that he and Mr Trump had a 'fruitful conversation', with Ukraine 'grateful' for the support. He added: 'Today we discussed the current situation, including Russian airstrikes and the broader frontline developments. President Trump is very well informed. A Ukrainian serviceman of the mobile air defense unit sits behind an anti-UAV machine gun tracking Russian drones in the sky during a patrol on November 29, 2024 in Chernihiv Oblast, Ukraine 'We spoke about opportunities in air defence and agreed we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies. 'We are ready for direct projects with the United States.' Last night, another strike caused a blackout in Ukraine after destroying the power line connecting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant to the country's power grid. It follows reports that the US is to reduce the amount of military hardware it gives Ukraine, with US defence officials yesterday denying rumours of a weapons shortage.

Sir Keir Starmer under mounting Labour rebel pressure to scrap two-child benefit cap
Sir Keir Starmer under mounting Labour rebel pressure to scrap two-child benefit cap

Scotsman

timean hour ago

  • Scotsman

Sir Keir Starmer under mounting Labour rebel pressure to scrap two-child benefit cap

Sir Keir Starmer is coming under mounting pressure from within his own Cabinet to scrap the two-child benefit cap, despite Treasury warnings over a lack of funding to ditch the policy. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The demand to remove the cap on benefit payments to families with more than two children comes in the same week that MPs forced the Prime Minister to back down on plans to cut £5 billion from the welfare budget. The climbdown hands Chancellor Rachel Reeves a major headache ahead of the Budget in the autumn. It comes just weeks after a similar £1.25bn U-turn on winter fuel payments and leaves the Chancellor with a £6.25bn hole to fill. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Any move to ditch the two-child cap, which means families can only claim child tax credit and universal credit for their first two children, would cost the exchequer around £3.5bn, bringing the total expenditure on the welfare policies to £9.75bn, effectively wiping out Ms Reeves's £9.9bn fiscal headroom. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, centre, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer, at the Sir Ludwig Guttman Health & Wellbeing Centre in London, England. Picture: Jack Hill/Getty Image The pressure mounts with the Scottish Government having confirmed it lift the two-child benefit cap on March 2 next year north of the Border – just two weeks before the Holyrood election campaign begins. One UK Cabinet minister acknowledged there was a 'significant cost' to scrapping two-child limit, but added: 'There is also a significant cost in other ways, of a Labour government not taking action to bring down child poverty. And we have to be able to go into the next election having made significant progress on child poverty.' The Cabinet member added: 'Whilst it's hard and the cost is high, it's clear that it is an effective way of supporting families and making sure that fewer children grow up in poverty. And the evidence supports that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The challenge is less do we do it – it's whether we can do it, and what the timing would look like around that.' Leading members of the welfare rebellion have warned the UK government will have to scrap the two-child cap if it is to meet its obligations to cut child poverty rates. Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central, said: "It is imperative that the government scrap the two-child limit and the benefit cap as this will lift 360,000 children out of poverty. But most of all, this will give these children a life of better opportunities, including to their health and wellbeing.' Another rebel warned: 'It definitely needs to go. We cannot seek to trade off poor children against poor disabled people or poor pensioners. We need to have a mission to tackle all poverty. End of.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms Reeves warned MPs on Thursday via a broadcast interview there 'is a cost' to the welfare changes voted for in Parliament this week that would be reflected in the Budget, when asked if there would be tax rises. The comments followed Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden insisting 'you can't spend the same money twice'. 'So more money spent on [welfare] means less for some other purpose,' he told the BBC this week. But government sources have said scrapping the two-child cap still 'remains on the table', despite the warnings from the Treasury, as removing the policy remains popular within the Cabinet. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Both Sir Keir and Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson have previously signalled the cap will go, with the latter understood to be particularly opposed to the policy. A Whitehall source said: 'It's still being discussed as part of the Child Poverty Taskforce. It's still on the table. This is not something we would have done in government, and it is one of a number of levers that is being looked at to alleviate child poverty." Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has said scrapping the two-child cap in Scotland could work out at nearly £3,500 for affected children and could see 20,000 fewer children living in relative poverty. Finance Secretary Shona Robison announced plans to scrap the cap in the 2025/26 Budget. The Scottish Government has said this is the 'fastest' a Scottish social security benefit has ever been delivered. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In other UK government developments, Sir Keir Starmer said he had a good relationship with US President Donald Trump because they both 'care about family'. The Prime Minister told the BBC Radio 4 podcast Political Thinking With Nick Robinson it was 'in the national interest' for the two men to connect. He said: 'We are different people and we've got different political backgrounds and leanings, but we do have a good relationship and that comes from a numbers of places. 'I think I do understand what anchors the president, what he really cares about. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'For both of us, we really care about family and there's a point of connection there.' Sir Keir said yesterday in the interview to mark a year in office he had a 'good personal relationship' with Mr Trump, and revealed the first time they spoke was after the-then presidential candidate was shot at a campaign rally in July last year. Addressing recent political turmoil, Sir Keir said he would always 'carry the can' as leader after coming under fire over a climbdown on welfare reforms and that he would 'always take responsibility' when asked questions. 'When things go well … the leader gets the plaudits, but when things don't go well, it is really important that the leader carries the can – and that's what I will always do,' he said. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store