The reaction in the immediate aftermath of the recent U.K. election was predictably animated, with Tory party insiders and outsiders alike offering their in-the-moment explanations for the catastrophic Conservative result. But letting the dust settle, we can now begin to take a dispassionate gaze at what went wrong for the incumbent Conservatives—and what lessons Canada’s conservatives can learn from their cousin’s downfall.
While the final outcome produced a very different British government than the previous 14 years, this was not due to a substantially different voting pattern than the past 14 years.
The Conservative Party vote was sapped by the surge in support for Reform UK, a new party led by Nigel Farage, a prime architect of Brexit. The inspiration (and name) behind Reform was the Canadian Reform Party of the 1990s, which aimed to restore a grassroots accountability to politics. Running on a platform with clear, concise messaging that “Britain is broken” and for “higher wages,” to “stop the boats,” and provide “cheaper energy,” Reform UK targeted a sense of malaise that crossed parties and spoke to a wide array of the country.
In the end, the U.K. election saw 14.3 percent of the vote cast for Reform, and 23.7 percent cast for the Tories. Added together, this works out to 38 percent to Labour’s 33.7 percent. Further, Labour’s 33.7 percent is the smallest of any majority government in Britain’s history—not exactly a durable sign of a mandate. While straight vote percentages are not equivalent to seats in a first-past-the-post system, being voted for in greater percentages does not hurt.
The number of seats lost by the Tories by the margin of votes that Reform won was 170, which while not perhaps enough to change the ultimate outcome, could have made it much more competitive. Any government with 14 years of baggage (and five prime ministers in that span) would be in tough to make an argument to voters that it should be reelected. Labour won largely by standing still and presenting itself as a “change” option.
While this does not dull the loss for the Conservatives, this is a natural consequence of democratic cycles in a democracy with multiple parties. Parties rebound and change, reforming themselves to respond to the electorate that rejected them.
Despite this, the Tories, a party since 1834, will now face a major test. Reform, which looks confident and is on the offensive, is making no secret about a “hostile takeover” of the Conservatives and will pose a serious threat. Rishi Sunak’s resignation as party leader will bring to the fore papered-over fissures scarcely camouflaged while the Tories were in government. Once this happens, a leadership contest will doubtless emphasize the critical decision for the party: do they think the best way back to government is incorporating Reform UK or not?
In all likelihood, some concessions will have to be made to draw Reform voters back to the Tory brand. A disaffection with frequent changes in prime minister, a disconnection from everyday people, and distrust in an elitist Tory party will each play their part.
Listening to those voices and fighting for the everyday Briton will deprive Reform of the oxygen it needs to survive and lead the Tories back to power. But as it stands, Reform has the momentum in the conversation as to who will lead the U.K.’s conservative movement into the future. A Tory civil war threatens to break out, with an MP already having resigned from the party, and others calling for soul-searching to create a single party on the Right.
These lessons apply to Canada as well. For the Conservatives to be successful, they must not allow themselves to become disconnected from everyday Canadians. The U.K. Conservatives stand as a warning as to what happens to conservative parties if the aim is lost. Like Britain, as a mostly three-party system with a regional (soft-nationalist) party, Canada mimics much of the voting dynamics seen in the latest U.K. election.
Despite what the Laurentian Consensus may demand, neglecting key issues animating your base (see the British Tories’ handling of immigration), pivoting too hard to the centre (see Erin O’Toole’s ill-conceived federal election campaign), and leaving yourself vulnerable on your Right flank (see Nigel Farage or Maxime Bernier eagerly waiting to split your vote) will only serve to drive you into a Sunakian slump and right out of office.
Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre shakes a supporter’s hand during a rally in Ottawa,March 24, 2024. Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press.
In 2019, British voters resonated with Boris Johnson, a larger-than-life figure who despite his own personal struggles, connected with the electorate to deliver the largest share of the popular vote since 1979 and the most seats to the Conservatives since 1987. With a message focused on positive, future-facing policies, it carried voters across the country, especially in traditionally Labour-voting areas. For Canadian Conservatives, the right messaging need not preclude traditionally non-voting conservative voters.
The faultlines in Canadian politics are changing. Premier Ford has shown how private-sector unions can be a key part of a winning conservative coalition. In Nova Scotia, Premier Houston ran on health care as the main issue and won the election, speaking to the electorate‘s widespread concerns, despite health care not traditionally being a winning issue for conservative parties. Keeping those new conservative Canadians inside the Conservative tent will not only serve to boost the party in traditionally uncompetitive areas, but it will also serve to democratize it and keep the focus on everyday people.
Remaining laser-focused on the average worker will also help to create an economy that works for all Canadians, not just Bay Street. Pierre Poilievre has made a convincing point of telling Canadians that he will work for them and not the elites. Such an attitude is a sign of the kind of leadership that will result in a durable series of governments. Creating a government whose thrust is to not only improve the economy but ensure that Canadians’ lives are also improved is a crucial component.
Preventing a nascent Canadian Reform Party 2.0 from forming speaks to part of why Canada’s Tories have been so focused on putting down the People’s Party. Negating a threat from the Right not only allows the party to absorb those voters but also creates a vested interest in maintaining their support. Since parties respond to both electoral potential and their members, this inherently shifts the party’s focus from elite issues to those that have more widespread appeal.
A Conservative Party that speaks to the issues facing everyday Canadians and addresses them with conservative values without fear of being undermined is one with long-lived potential. As the main lesson from the British election has shown, threats to parties exist not only without, but, if the focus is lost, from within as well.
Andrew is a Master’s student at Columbia University, where he is also a research assistant at the Center on Global Energy Policy.
