FROM FIASCO TO TRIUMPH

The Labour Party has achieved a significant electoral triumph, marking a pivotal moment in the United Kingdom's political history. Following 14 years in power, the Conservative Party suffered its most significant electoral defeat in the form of an early parliamentary election. The Labour Party, under the leadership of Keir Starmer, has thus returned to power just five years after suffering its most significant electoral defeat since the 1930s.

Bored Tories

Nevertheless, there is no discernible sense of failure on the part of the former and no clear indication of triumph on the part of the latter. As commentators have unanimously asserted, the Labour Party's victory can be attributed to the lack of viable opposition from the Conservative Party. In other words, there was a pervasive sentiment of discontent with the Conservative Party, and a desire for a shift in the political landscape. It is not without reason that the Labour Party's principal election slogan was "Change". A further question is whether Starmer is prepared to provide it. He is a moderate centre-left leader, characterised by a high level of conscientiousness, effective management skills, and a commitment to stability and problem-solving. However, he displays a notable lack of optimism and has received a negative rating. In essence, he is no different from his predecessor, Rishi Sunak. 

Sunak, who held office for less than two years, will be remembered for two notable achievements: firstly, for being the first non-white, Hindu prime minister in British history; and secondly, for being the youngest head of government in the country for 200 years. He was adequately competent and experienced, yet the role of prime minister proved beyond his capabilities. It is said that he lacked the political acumen and finesse of a traditional technocrat. It would be inaccurate, however, to attribute the Conservative Party’s defeat to Starmer alone. Rather, the loss was the result of a confluence of events and problems that have accumulated over recent years, including the global pandemic of 2020 and the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2016.

Many observers have noted a perceived lack of distinction between the two leaders, with some suggesting that the UK has simply swapped a relatively uninspiring technocrat in Rishi Sunak for a similarly unremarkable administrator in Keir Starmer. The record low turnout at the election is also indicative of a public fatigue with the perceived incompetence of the Conservative Party's ever-changing and divided political leadership.

In addition to the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party also suffered a defeat in the election. This signifies a reduction in the degree of support for the idea of independence. Perhaps the most striking moment of the election was the election of Nigel Farage, the 60-year-old leader of the Brexit Party, Reform UK, who had previously failed in his attempts to gain a seat in the House of Commons on seven occasions. What renders Farage's image particularly intriguing is that his opponents have accused him of ties to the Kremlin and labelled him a "Russian agent" (which represents the mildest form of derision).

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a proponent of pacifism and leftist ideology, espousing more radical views than those currently held by the party leadership, was also elected in his North Islington constituency (North London). However, he is now standing as an independent candidate, having previously been expelled from the party. It is also noteworthy that Keir Starmer, the current leader of the Labour Party, is the second most popular figure in the party, trailing only Jeremy Corbyn. This indicates that the Labour Party has experienced a decline in electoral support since the 2019 election, which resulted in its defeat under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. It is noteworthy that the Labour Party won 33.8% of the vote but 63% of parliamentary seats. Farage's party received 14.2% of the vote and just under 1% of seats. This is the current state of British political reality.

Lack of Charisma

In the absence of charisma, Starmer's programme has been perceived as unconvincing. However, the actions of the Conservative Party have been deemed even less convincing by many observers. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that there will be minimal change in the political landscape of the United Kingdom. It is evident that Starmer lacks both innovative qualities and the requisite political charisma. As previously indicated, this is evident in the voting patterns of the electorate. The substantial discrepancy between the political stances of the two main parties is reflected in the negative ratings of both the losing and the winning candidates. This indicates that the electorate is indifferent to the identity of the political leader. Sociological research indicates that 40% of the British population perceive no distinction between the two principal political parties, namely the Conservative (Tory) Party and the Labour Party. Should the Labour Party fail to identify a solution to the challenges currently facing the country, it is probable that they will suffer a significant electoral defeat. It is also possible that another early election may be held. It is possible that the Conservative Party may gain ground and regain power, capitalising on the shortcomings of their political opponents.

The potential for miscalculation is considerable, given that Britain is evidently experiencing a period of considerable difficulty. The country is currently experiencing a number of economic challenges, including low growth, a significant national debt, periodic strikes by civil servants, social issues, and a persistent migrant crisis. The British Treasury is experiencing a deficit in financial resources, with a budgetary shortfall of 120 billion pounds. The inaugural session of the British parliament is scheduled to commence in July, with the legislature expected to be fully operational by the autumn. This will pave the way for pivotal discussions on the budget.

One might be forgiven for assuming that the unexpected announcement of the early elections would have a significant impact.

Surprise Effect?

In light of these circumstances, it remains unclear why Sunak has chosen to announce early elections at this juncture. It appears that the decision to hold early elections was made at the discretion of the Prime Minister and his closest advisors.

It is also noteworthy that France has similarly opted for an early election. The rationale behind this decision remains opaque. One might inquire whether President Emmanuel Macron and Rishi Sunak sought to achieve a surprise effect. Such an approach may have been beneficial, but ultimately proved disadvantageous.

However, while in Britain the left (centre-left) actually came to power, in France the situation is more complex. The right was expected to win, but the left ultimately prevailed. A fortnight after the initial round of voting, the French electorate was compelled to select between the formation of a far-right government, a first in the country's history, or the prospect of a hung parliament, where no single party would possess the necessary majority to form a government independently. Consequently, the far-right political party, National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardell, received the support of approximately one-third of the electorate in the first round of the parliamentary elections. However, it was opposed by the "New Popular Front", which unites socialists, Greens, communists, and the party Unconquered France headed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a supporter of extreme left-wing views. Consequently, the New Popular Front was the leading candidate in the second round, while Emmanuel Macron's alliance came second and Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National only third. Despite the assertion by the country's interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, that "it is impossible to defeat the extreme right with the help of the extreme left", The prevailing sentiment is that the outcome of European politics is unpredictable.

It is notable that the parties comprising the winning alliance exhibit considerable diversity in their approaches. Despite this, they are unified in their opposition to right-wing forces. Furthermore, they do not possess an absolute majority. It is possible that some of them may align with Macron's group. However, it is questionable whether this government can be considered sustainable in light of the challenges it faces in governing a large, complex, and ambitious country like France. The next parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place in approximately one year's time. It is also conceivable that the three parties could simply impede each other's actions, which would effectively mark the advent of a protracted crisis. Furthermore, this situation is occurring concurrently with the imminent commencement of the Olympic Games in Paris. Similarly, as with the United Kingdom, the prevailing view among analysts is that the outcome will be largely unchanged.

A review of electoral processes in European countries and the United States reveals a growing perception that the Western ruling elite is responding in an increasingly inadequate manner to the challenges it is facing, including those of a geopolitical, economic and social nature. The political landscape is undergoing a period of transition, yet the fundamental dynamics remain largely unchanged. A change of power due to various reasons, but largely because of the majoritarian system, often fails to reflect the real preferences of voters. This failure inevitably leads to an increase in the popularity of populist parties. It is not uncommon for individuals to cast their votes not in support of a particular candidate, but rather in opposition to another.

It is of the utmost importance to consider how these developments in leading EU countries, in addition to the situation preceding the US presidential election, will impact international geopolitics and the role of the of the West in the international system.