Revisiting the political cycle
It seems that the political cycle has changed. It used to be thought that after left-leaning governments had broken the economy by reckless spending, the UK public would elect right-leaning ones to fix it. When they had done so and the country prospered again, people would elect a left-leaning government to redistribute the wealth by over-spending, and ruin the economy again.
Some observers pointed to a rough historical rhythm. It could start with Attlee and the economic quagmire he left, though that could also be attributed to the aftermath of the Second World War. Successive Conservative governments followed until by 1959 the British public had ‘never had it so good,’ (though Harold Macmillan put it differently).
In the 1970s, Labour governments led by Harold Wilson and then Jim Callaghan faced major economic crises of inflation and the strikes it engendered, leading to the IMF bailout in 1976.
Between 1979–1997 the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major implemented monetarism, deregulation, privatization, and in the process ‘fixing’ an economy seen as crippled by public sector inefficiency.
Between 1997–2010 New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown maintained fiscal discipline early but increased public spending significantly in the 2000s. The 2008 financial crisis happened under Labour.
Between 2010–2019 the Conservatives under David Cameron and Theresa May, pursued austerity to address rising deficits. But under Boris Johnson and his successors, large-scale public spending returned, partly owing to COVID-19 and other political priorities such as ‘levelling up’.
This pattern gave the impression of a political cycle under which public spending, expansive social programs, and borrowing characterized Labour administrations, while Conservatives favoured fiscal consolidation, austerity, and market confidence.
Whether there was such a cycle is open to question, but there was a public perception that there was. Voters often respond to the economic experiences they go through.
In times of economic hardship, voters may favor right-leaning parties seen as more fiscally responsible, but once the economy stabilizes, voters may shift to the left in pursuit of social investment, public services, or income redistribution. Over time, if spending is perceived as excessive or unsustainable, the cycle resets. This contributes to a pendulum effect, reinforcing the idea of a cycle.
The UK’s media landscape, especially tabloids and financial press, often favours fiscal prudence and skepticism toward public spending. This helps amplify the perception that equates the Left with reckless spending and the Right with economic repair. At least it did so until recently. The post-2019 governments broke it, and new alignments now make the idea irrelevant.
One could argue that the main purpose of voting Conservatism was to keep Labour at bay, but when Conservative governments started incorporating Labour ideas, it no longer made sense. One could also argue that the main purpose of the Liberal-Democrats was to offer an alternative to both major parties, but with the rise of Reform, there’s now a stronger way of saying that.
The political cycle, if there was one, is broken. Like much of Continental Europe, we might be headed for a moderate centre-left coalition facing, and perhaps alternating with, a populist right.
Madsen Pirie