Britain is being primed for a ‘hopeless’ election

Receive free UK politics & policy updates

We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest UK politics & policy news every morning.

It is possible that the UK will look back on the next campaign as the hopeless election, a contest between two parties for the support of voters who do not believe either will materially improve their lives or the country.

The lack of hope is palpable. People feel battered by inflation, falling living standards, strikes, public service crises and a general sense of decline. Brexit is now viewed by a majority of voters as a mistake. Labour has yet to fill the void. Politics feels like a battle of low expectations. To quote Aaron Sorkin, voters feel they are being asked “to choose between the lesser of ‘who cares?’”

Polling for the left-leaning New Britain Project shows nearly three-fifths of voters say “nothing in Britain works anymore”. More troubling is that only a fifth believe politicians have the ability to solve the UK’s biggest issues. 

Labour leaders are rightly worried by this trend. “The Conservatives are damping down hope by encouraging the view that no party would do any better,” says a senior Labour strategist.

There is limited advantage to a governing party in promoting the idea that things are now so bleak that no one can fix them. But the claim is not entirely empty. Tories want to convince potential supporters not to risk replacing Rishi Sunak. If voters believe that Keir Starmer offers no improvement then the bar Sunak has to clear is that much lower.

This is the thinking behind Sunak’s “pledge card” approach. By setting out five promises, all of which he expected to meet, Sunak aimed to win the reputation as a reliable problem solver. This looks less certain than he would wish, but Tories still hope for enough progress to offer a plausible argument. One cabinet minister says: “This year is about building up Rishi so next year we can offer hope around a better economy, immigration control, Brexit freedoms and Britain’s place in the world.”

In truth, this looks like more of the same. Luke Tryl, director of the research group More in Common, argues: “The Tories are struggling on loss aversion because people don’t think they would lose very much if they fell.” But despite Labour’s poll lead, many contrast the lukewarm support for Starmer with the enthusiasm for Tony Blair in 1997. The shortfall is where the hope should be.

One difficulty may be Labour’s “broken Britain” narrative. It is an effective slogan for prosecuting the government’s record. But it also plays into that wider feeling of hopelessness. A tone more along the lines of “Britain can do better” is less downbeat.

Labour loyalists have another fear: that the desire to offer hope will be used to agitate for reckless spending commitments. “The hope problem is real,” says one frontbencher, “but it can’t mean a splurge of unfunded spending pledges. That doesn’t work.” For Starmer, confidence in Labour’s control of the public finances must be the foundation for all policy.

And voters may not be wrong to have little faith. The UK faces immense technological, environmental, financial and geopolitical challenges. Public services require major reform as well as funding. Yet both parties appear to offer only painless solutions. Labour will not discuss the taxes it knows it must raise to fund public services; the Tories will not discuss spending cuts. All play up reform as a magical, cost-free option. But from nuclear power to social care, the record on long-term plans has been lamentable. On both sides, voters’ expectations are being managed down.

So what can Starmer do? One ally says he needs to remind voters that governments can make a difference. This means stressing the achievements of the early Blair years, from the minimum wage to reducing NHS waiting times. 

It also requires calculated risks. One pollster says the Labour leader’s recent call for planning reform to boost housebuilding was seen favourably by focus groups as a sign of him taking a strong position. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, were probably wise to water down the unaffordable £28bn-a-year green plan, but dilute too many promises and suddenly your promise of change looks like business as usual.

Starmer has got a lot right. He has made his party electable as voters desert the government. His recent speech about providing hope through economic security was pitch-perfect. Next week, he will flesh out his plan to “break down barriers to opportunity”. He doesn’t need a sharp change of strategy or umpteen new policies which, in any case, voters doubt will be delivered. But as well the longer-term, ambitious policies, Starmer needs to spell out the ways his government would improve people’s lives in year one.

And voters must see more of the courage he showed in routing the hard left. Starmer’s caution, especially on spending, is understandable, but voters respond to leadership.

This is not a call for silly risks or more empty boosterism. But of all the UK’s problems, the loss of hope is the most chilling. From the NHS to schools to living standards, voters need at least one of the major parties to offer a sense of direction to a nation that has stalled, even if the journey is hard. The rewards could be huge. For Labour especially, being a convincing voice of hope is probably the difference between winning outright or falling short.

There is also a broader price for Britain if fatalism becomes entrenched. If voters cannot find grounds for hope in the traditional parties, they may turn back to the populists for solutions.

[email protected]