We can guess that, however well the Liberal Democrats or Greens do in this week’s council elections, the main headlines will be about the success of Farage and his Reform party. David Jeffrey, in discussing how to fight right wing populism here, has a clear message for Labour. “For social democratic centre-left parties, academic research is clear: do not move towards the populist radical right on policy.” Yet that is what Labour did last year, with such apparent success, and what it is continuing to do. Is this because our FPTP voting system means that lessons from Europe do not apply to the UK?
There is a simple trade-off. By adopting a more socially conservative position Labour may attract voters who would otherwise vote for one of our two right wing populist parties, but they may lose socially liberal voters who might normally vote Labour. What do current polls tell us about this trade-off? We know that the big changes since last year’s general election are a big increase in the Reform vote and a big fall in Labour’s vote. But that isn’t because lots of Labour voters are switching to Reform.
Take for example this YouGov poll from mid-April. Most ‘new’ Reform voters come from the Conservatives, not Labour. Labour have lost twice as many voters to the Liberal Democrats than Reform. If you equate right wing populism in the UK with Farage and Reform, then what the Conservatives do to combat Reform matters much more than anything Labour does, and Labour are currently losing three times more voters to the LibDems plus Greens than Reform.
However it is incorrect to follow the media in believing that right wing populism is confined to Reform. There was little difference in the last election between Reform and the Conservatives on policy, and the latter hasn’t exactly become more socially liberal since then! In addition, Labour should plan on the basis that there will be a Tory/Reform pact at the next election. Yet even taking this point on board, currently Labour are still losing twice as many voters to socially liberal parties than socially conservative parties.
There is an obvious problem with this calculation. It might tell us something about the number of voters Labour could win back by changing their socially conservative stance, but it doesn’t tell us how many more voters Labour might lose to the Tories or Reform if they did so. To put it another way, Labour have since the general election lost a substantial number of voters to right wing populism despite maintaining a socially conservative stance.
There are two good reasons why this numerical exercise overestimates the potential cost of defections by socially liberal or left wing voters. The first is that this is an opinion poll, not a general election. Labour clearly thinks [1] that, come a general election, many of these voters will return to Labour to avoid a right wing populist party winning. I discussed here some reasons why many might not, but some certainly will. However even if this ‘they will come back’ argument is correct, it ignores the political costs of Labour being seen as a very unpopular government between now and the next election. The second is that many of the Labour voters being lost to more socially liberal parties will be in city seats that are safe for Labour. As Brexit showed, FPTP is biased towards social conservatism.
However there are also strong arguments that triangulating towards socially conservative policies will not stop many Labour voters defecting to Reform or the Conservatives. The first is that triangulation makes much more sense for an opposition than a government.
When a government is unpopular, it makes sense for the main opposition to diminish the differences between itself and the government, because by doing so it can attract voters who might be sympathetic to the government’s goals but disappointed in its record. If the opposition instead promised radically different policies, that might sound dangerous to these voters. Those who want large changes will vote for the opposition in a general election anyway (probably but not necessarily hoping for greater change). Triangulation by the opposition makes sense, because it reduces fear of change.
In contrast, it makes much less sense for an unpopular government to try and diminish the differences between itself and the opposition, because voters will base their decisions on the government’s record rather than its rhetoric.
Take immigration as an example. The last government said it was tough on immigration, but their record said otherwise. As a result many of those who wanted lower immigration were unhappy with the Tory government and voted to defeat it. As the Labour opposition said they like low immigration too, these voters feel safer in voting the government out.
Now think about a Labour government in 2028/9. Immigration, although lower than 2024, is still likely to be higher than socially conservative voters want. The Conservatives and Reform will be fighting Labour on this issue, so socially conservative voters will turn to these two parties. It doesn’t matter if the Labour government says they want lower immigration, because their record counts for much more in voters’ minds than what they say.
To put the same point another way, other things being equal, if you are a social conservative you will vote for a party that is most convincingly socially conservative. As David Jeffrey notes, “when parties adopt populist radical right positions, voters are more likely to defect to the radical right instead.” That didn’t work for the last government because of their record. The only way a Labour government could get voters whose primary concern was immigration to vote for them was if their record on immigration was just what socially conservative voters wanted, but that is very unlikely to happen.
The best way for a Labour government to win over socially conservative voters is on its economic record, and to contrast this with the economic record of right wing populists. This is because Labour voters who are ‘Reform curious’ are socially conservative but left leaning on economics. Although Labour understands this, I have argued repeatedly that it is failing to do what is necessary to achieve its economic ambitions. Even some in Blue Labour seem to agree. On public services, Labour has failed to raise tax by enough. It could do more to tax wealth, but if this is not enough it needs to raise taxes on income. As Labour keep saying, the world has changed, so they cannot cling to pre-election promises. [2]
Which brings us to another strong argument against Labour’s turn to social conservatism. Social conservative policies tend to lead to economic harm. If Labour adopts socially conservative policies and rhetoric, it at best undercuts what it can say on public services and growth, and at worst it undermines their attempts to improve public services and growth. It can also hinder their case against right wing populism.
Brexit is a clear example. To appease socially conservative voters Labour are approaching realignment with the EU at a snail’s pace, when doing more would have an appreciable impact on economic growth before the next election. Immigration is another example. Despite all the research showing otherwise, too many voters believe that cutting immigration will improve their access to public services. Yet instead of the government counteracting the right wing media’s propaganda on this, it seems instead to prefer not to believe the evidence! Equally universities have been a UK economic success story, but they are currently struggling in part because they are hit by Home Office concerns over immigration numbers.
At present, Labour are creating for themselves the worst possible background to the next election. By triangulating too far towards right wing populists, they are limiting what they can do to improve personal income growth and public services. By talking about immigration in the same way as the Conservatives and Reform, they are laying themselves open to a general election where the right wing press sets an agenda that has been validated by this government’s rhetoric.
This is not an argument for Labour to switch to social liberalism on issues like immigration, even though this would be closer to my own policy preference. Instead it is an argument for creating a more distinctive approach, which recognises the concerns of social conservatives but which is more honest, and as a result does not compromise living standards or public services. The Social Democrats in Denmark have shown how this can be done successfully. If you like, Labour can be tough on the causes of high immigration rather than employing empty or damaging rhetoric about being tough on immigration.
On economic issues it needs to do far more than just attack particular Reform policies. These will have a limited purchase on low information voters (who instead see stuff like this) and there is always the danger that Farage will co-opt left wing policies as he has before. He can do that because, like other right wing populists, he is quite happy to lie.
Which brings me to the two most effective weapons Labour currently have to fight Reform and Farage. The first is Brexit. Most voters, including a majority of Leave voters, recognise that Brexit has not been a success. Farage along with Johnson were the two major figures who championed leaving the EU. Farage pretends that this failure is somehow due to how Johnson enacted Brexit, whereas in reality they are inherent in Brexit itself. To an outsider it must seem incredulous that someone who can be so wrong about such a major issue, and who has made voters poorer as a result, is currently so popular. The reason is in large part because the Labour government refuses to be honest about the costs of Brexit.
The second potent weapon against Reform is Donald Trump. The simple way of getting across the message that Farage’s policies will have severe economic costs and that his claims otherwise are just lies is to equate Farage to Trump. Trump’s tariffs are hitting the US economy and causing chaos, just as Farage’s championing of Brexit has hit the UK economy. Trump promised lower prices but his policies are increasing them, and equally Reform’s promises on the economy are worthless and their policies will reduce living standards. The simple message that Labour should be repeating at every opportunity is that if voters want to know what a country led by Farage would look like, they just need to see what is happening to the nation led by his friend Donald Trump.
[1] The child benefit cap is more of a social than economic issue for some voters, because it is seen by many social conservatives as a benefit going to the undeserving poor.
[2] Labour claims that tax is a cost of living issue, but as the US election showed, what many voters blame the government for on the cost of living is higher prices, not lower real earnings. Furthermore, tax increases now will be forgotten or forgiven if it enables better public services by the time of the next election.