• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Peter Kellner"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "EU Integration and Enlargement",
    "Brexit and UK Politics"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Europe",
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "EU",
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

The End of Twentieth-Century Labour

Brexit has accelerated a massive change in British voting behavior, but not started it. For the Labour party, the 2019 UK election should mark the beginning of its own fundamental transition.

Link Copied
By Peter Kellner
Published on Dec 13, 2019

Source: TheArticle

Three huge facts about Boris Johnson’s victory dwarf all others. The first is that the new Parliament will have a big majority for taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union. The second is that almost two million more people voted for parties that wanted to rethink Brexit than wanted it to go ahead next month. The third is that a huge structural change in the way people vote is transforming Britain’s political geography.

Let’s start with facts one and two. Across Britain, 52 per cent voted for one of the “rethink” parties — Labour, Lib Dem, Green, DNP and Plaid Cymru. Their total comfortably defeated the 47 per cent who supported the pro-Brexit parties: Conservative, Brexit Party and Ukip. The big difference is that the Tories had a near monopoly of the pro-Brexit vote in most seats, whereas the rethink vote was divided. Time and again, Remain seats elected Conservative MPs on minority votes. Putney was one of the very few seats where tactical voting overcame divisions in the anti-Brexit vote, and delivered the only Labour gain of the night.

Ten years ago, an election that precipitated a massive change in Britain’s future place in the world on a minority vote would have prompted angry demands for electoral reform. Perhaps such demands will now be revived. However, Nick Clegg screwed up in 2010 when he insisted on a referendum on a change in the way we elect our MPs as one of his main conditions for helping David Cameron to become Prime Minister. The referendum produced a two-to-one majority for the status quo. Regardless of the merits of changing the system following this election, it is not a politically feasible objective now, and won’t be for some time to come.

More urgent is the need for the Left to come to terms with the simultaneous failure of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In my column for TheArticle on November 26, I presented startling data contrasting the swing of almost 20 per cent from Labour to Conservative among Leave voters since 2015, with the swing of almost 10 per cent to Labour among Remain voters. (That second swing had taken place by 2017 — there has been no further shift since the last election.) The signs that this contrast would defeat dozens of Labour MPs in the Midlands and North were clear. Seats that were ultra-safe in 2015 became vulnerable in 2017, and fell like ripe plums into the Tory lap this week.

Read Full Text

This article was originally published by TheArticle.

Peter Kellner
Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie Europe
Peter Kellner
EUPolitical ReformEuropeWestern EuropeUnited KingdomIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Uzbekistan, the President’s Daughter Is Now His Second-in-Command

    Having failed to build a team that he can fully trust or establish strong state institutions, Mirziyoyev has become reliant on his family.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Japan’s “Militarist Turn” and What It Means for Russia

    For a real example of political forces engaged in the militarization of society, the Russian leadership might consider looking closer to home.

      James D.J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lithuania’s Potash Dilemma Raises Questions About Sanctions’ Effectiveness

    What should happen when sanctions designed to weaken the Belarusian regime end up enriching and strengthening the Kremlin?  

      Denis Kishinevsky

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?

    The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.

      Andrei Dagaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ukrainian Villages Are a Bigger Prize for Putin Than a Deal With Trump

    Western negotiators often believe territory is just a bargaining chip when it comes to peace in Ukraine, but Putin is obsessed with empire-building. 

      Andrey Pertsev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.