In line with many polls predicting the outcome for months, the Labour party has won a landslide victory in the July 4th British general elections. Sir Keir Starmer’s success is comparable to that of Tony Blair in May 1997 and opens a new chapter in contemporary British politics after 14 years of Conservative power. Noticeably, under Starmer’s leadership, Labour has managed to overcome its internal divisions, to overhaul its policy platform, and to reconnect with voters lost in 2019. The party now promises to stabilize and grow the economy, tackle the public services crisis, and reunite the country while keeping public finances under control. We ask Dr Karl Pike, Lecturer in Public Policy at Queen Mary University (London), to share his views.

Interview conducted by Olivier Marty, President of the Cercle franco-britannique

In your view, what are the key policy issues behind Labour’s resounding victory in the July 4th general elections? Which other factors contributed to the defeat of the Conservatives during the campaign?

There is typically a mix of factors leading to a result like this. The Conservatives were undoubtedly unpopular, and to make matters worse, Rishi Sunak had a terrible election campaign. Enough people in the UK had decided the Tories needed to leave office.

Public services – most prominently the National Health Service (NHS) – are in need of more resources to address the huge problems they face. This partly explains why the Tories were so unpopular, but it also speaks to why enough people gave their support to Labour – the Labour Party has long been associated with policies to support public services.

The UK has under-performed economically too, a problem made worse by “Brexit”. Labour offered some pretty clear direction on the economy overall, again by way of contrast with the Conservatives: more stability with Labour, focused on a small number of core priorities; more chaos with the Tories. So, Keir Starmer put Labour in a position where it could benefit from a Conservative meltdown. In the end, the Conservatives had a few meltdowns, and Labour maintained a strong enough position to win.

Can you provide an image of Labour’s electorate during this election? How has the party appealed to the wide diversity of the British population in terms of age, background, education, wealth and territory?

Labour’s electoral coalition – particularly in England – is very broad but also rather thin. There has been a lot of attention on Labour’s vote share. It was 34%, so not a big increase on the 32% achieved in 2019 (when Labour lost), but one that has still led to a landslide victory.

Labour’s performance in Scotland was the clearest and most impressive boost, with a significantly increased vote share taking lots of seats away from the Scottish National Party (SNP). The 34% figure across England, Scotland and Wales was enough to win big because Labour’s vote was what is often called “efficient”, in other words, it was big enough in all the right places to win lots of constituencies. It was also enough because the Conservatives did so badly, meaning many of their candidates plummeted in terms of support. We will know more about voters and constituencies when the British Election Study data becomes available.

According to a YouGov poll, age and education remained important in terms of voting choice: younger voters tended to vote for Labour over the Conservatives, while more people aged over 60 opted for the Conservatives than voted Labour; more people with a degree or higher in education voted Labour than Conservative (42 and 18% respectively according to YouGov). There are indications from polling that Labour picked up some support from 2019 Conservative voters (according to More in Common/UCL polling) and the outcome shows Labour rebuilt the so-called “Red Wall” that had become emblematic of the 2019 Conservative victory. But there is a sense that all of this may be short-lived, and that UK politics will continue to experience big and swift changes from one election to the next.

Labour’s policy platform is formally constructed around “five missions”: including kickstarting economic growth, making Britain a clean energy superpower, reducing crime, breaking down barriers to opportunity, and building an NHS fit for the future. Can you give us a sense of what the new government will do in more detail?

The concept of “missions” could be of significance itself. This kind of thinking, influenced by the economist Mariana Mazzucato (an Italian-British-American economist advocating a larger role for the state to support innovation, currently Professor at UCL, editor’s note), seeks to assemble a broad coalition of actors, across government and the private sector, to achieve “missions” or goals. These have the potential to be “market-shaping”, in other words, that you start with the aim or goal, and then the market is created or shaped to meet that goal, often through government kickstarting investment and ensuring confidence in the goal being maintained, so making it a good investment.

If you think of becoming a clean energy superpower, that suits “missions thinking”, because you want to create or shape a market to achieve a particular goal. It is less clear for some of the other missions, e.g. economic growth, or helping the NHS.

When Labour talks about a particular kind of economic growth, it takes you a little closer. Some Labour policies, such as boosting worker rights, or devolving budgets to local areas, have the potential to be market shaping, distributing wealth and creating wealth across the UK.

The Labour party has promised to revamp British public services, especially the National Health Service (NHS) and the education system, which are under severe strain. How does it plan to tackle this important issue without incurring more debt and taxes as it has promised to do?

The Labour government’s answer to this question is “growth”. Grow the economy, gain more tax receipts, and have more resources for public services. This is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, was keen to highlight some Treasury analysis in her first speech in the job: if the UK had grown at the OECD average rate over the Tory years, there would have been “an additional £58 billion in tax revenues in the last year alone”. Hence the focus on growth.

Now, some good news on the economy is long overdue, and may come. But it may not come fast enough to solve public sector funding problems, it may not last long, or it may be good… but not good enough. All of these things suggest that the UK needs to get used to tax levels more comparable to other European countries if it wants strong public services.

In my view, the easy option for Labour was to say little on tax and have a go at the Tories for increasing taxes (at the end of the Tories’ mandate, the “tax burden” in the UK reached a 70 year high, editor’s note). The harder option was to spell out how Conservative policies had undermined public services, and if we want them to improve, cutting taxes will make it even harder to get an appointment to see the doctor, or for the school building to be fixed. Labour took the easier option in opposition. Many will think that was electorally sensible, but this is also a short-term view, I think.

Britain is faced with a worryingly weakened rate of potential economic growth and a crisis of productivity reflecting mismatching of skills as well as, allegedly, poor jobs and management practices. How does the new Labour government hope to secure “the highest sustained growth in the G7”, which is quite a daring promise?

It’s a big commitment. And it’s worth noting that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has already factored in moderate growth in its forecasting, which still leaves areas of public spending that are “unprotected”, including local government, with a significant funding challenge. So, for growth to be the thing that really helps this Labour government deliver, it does need to be significantly improved growth. Labour has sought to show it has “hit the ground running”. The new Chancellor announced some swift planning reforms very early on. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and “Net Zero”, lifted the “ban” on onshore wind development within days of taking office.

Labour wants to convince people looking to invest that the UK is now the place to do it, and that it will make it easier to get things built and to get things done. It has also rightly signaled that the Conservative Party’s predilection for denigrating UK growth sectors – such as universities – has come to an end (the Tories had promised in their campaign to scrap some University courses in England to help fund 100.000 apprenticeships per year, editor’s note). Labour needs thriving UK sectors to not only hang on in there, but to keep growing. Of course, there is also something that could be done to help boost UK growth: undo the damage of “Brexit”.

Britain faces many structural challenges acting as powerful constraints to effective public policies, including a feeble demography, skills mismatch, obstacles to building more infrastructure, the effects of “Brexit”, and strained public finances. Has the Labour party thought these issues through before assuming power?

Let me take a couple of those, starting with where I finished the previous answer: “Brexit”. Political parties often perceive constraints upon their agency, typically these are economic, often global. On “Brexit”, Labour perceives a domestic, political constraint: that if it embraced a strategy to undo the damaging effects of “Brexit”, it would boost “Faragism” (the political clout of Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform party, formerly UKIP, editor’s note), and give the Conservative Party a betrayal narrative.

So, Labour politicians are very aware of the severity of the challenges facing the UK, but also feel like their room for manoeuvre is circumscribed. This is why we will really only understand what this Labour government can achieve when it actually starts trying to tackle complex problems: how far is it willing to go to fix the economic damage of “Brexit”?

Similarly, UK infrastructure needs repair and upgrade, from schools to local transport. The Labour government recognizes that borrowing for investment is correct, but is also still restricted by one of its fiscal rules (debt coming down as % of GDP by the end of a five-year forecast).

The electoral calculation Labour also needs to make is about expectations – what will people expect, at the end of this Parliament? If Labour does offer a competent period of government, and has a decent list of things delivered and improved, it has a good message for the next election and it can win again. Labour has agency and can – and must – deliver.