Who should you vote for in the General Election?

A non-partisan guide on things to consider when deciding who gets your vote

With the General Election campaign in full swing, who should you vote for?

With the taller candidate winning around 60% of US Presidential elections¹, it’s clear that plenty of us make decisions on fairly arbitrary grounds. Even setting aside height, who ‘won’ a TV debate, which candidate seems more honest or which leader speaks for ‘people like me’ all can be both subjective and deceptive. How far should one weight the promises in a manifesto, the nature of the current leader or a party’s track record?

But first, the most important thing - if you’ve not already done so - is to register to vote. This is easy to do using the link here - but must be done by 18th June. The site also sets out what you need to vote in person and what ID is valid, as well as how to apply for a postal or proxy vote. Make sure you register to vote!

I’ll be setting out here the various factors that one might want to consider in a general election, which are most important - and how to see through the fluff to what really matters. With this general election being the hardest, since I first became eligible to vote², for me to decide which way to vote, it seemed a good time to set out the various factors under consideration.

Although this is a non-partisan guide as far as party is concerned, I will be unashamed pushing the view that what matters most in a general election are national issues, not local ones. Your MP is your representative³ in the national parliament, and should not be a glorified local councillor nor even, primarily, a ‘local champion’. This is not to denigrate the work that MPs do locally - but to observe that strong local democracy is not achieved by electing ‘local’ MPs, and that your MP is your only voice on national issues. As William Hague put it:

“Taking up local issues, even though they are usually matters decided by councillors or other local bodies, has always been part of an MP’s role. But something has changed in the past 20 years: it has become most of an MP’s role. Answering the torrent of messages has taken over from legislating in MPs’ daily work. Voters increasingly demand a truly local MP. The parties obligingly respond to this by providing one.

It’s an understandable trend: people are mystified about who is accountable for what. They seek someone who will at least campaign for something locally in a world where bigger issues seem impossible to resolve. Yet the overall effect is very worrying. Instead of a national parliament, we are moving towards a meeting of local representatives, each pleading for their own area…

…Britain does need vibrant local democracy, which is why elected mayors with more powers are a good idea. It also needs, however, a strong national parliament, with members who can get there on account of their great ability, irrespective of where they grew up. We will need in the future our Churchill, Thatcher, Callaghan, Cameron or Macmillan — none of whom represented a local constituency.”

William Hague, 2024

I know that many people would count local issues higher. But whether or not you agree with the specific weights in the table below, the headings may provide a useful guide for considering who to vote for.

TIER 0

Which party you want in Government: This is the single most important issue that will be decided by a general election and should be the primary determinant of your vote. But how to decide which one you want? Well, that’s where the factors below come in.

TIER 1

Manifesto and other pledges: Contrary to common belief, manifestos matter a lot. Pledges made in the manifesto tend to be given a much higher priority than anything else and Governments strive to achieve as many as possible⁴. Particularly if it’s about a specific, deliverable commitment - rather than a goal or target - there’s a very good chance that the party will deliver.

Now, manifestos are long⁵. But the BBC and other sources typically provide good summaries of the main pledges in key areas. Feel free to weight more heavily the commitments and areas that mean most to you: don’t feel obliged to weight transport as heavily as healthcare if it’s not⁶. Sometimes, a single issue may override almost all others as - for many of us - was the case with Brexit in 2019. But whether you make a systematic scoring chart or simply go with a general sense of which is better, manifestos should be a key desideratum.

One final thing to look out for is for specifics. If one party wants to create new grammar schools, or to ban nuclear power, that’s straightforward: you agree with it or not. But what about aspirations and goals?

A broad guide: if it’s something that everyone would claim to want (say, less crime) look at what, specifically, they’re pledging beneath it - particularly if it’s something that all parties have been pledging to deliver for decades and not delivering on (*cough* housing *cough*). Tony Blair’s slogan of Education, Education, Education came backed by specific pledges on class sizes⁷; Michael Gove, similarly, had a lot of specific pledges on education, such as free schools and a more rigorous curriculum. Meanwhile Cameron’s pledge to cut immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ was never delivered, because the specifics weren’t spelled out.

Overall ethos and values of party: Despite extolling the virtues of the manifesto, most decisions made by a Government won’t be in the manifesto. Things change, new circumstances arise - and, simply speaking, Government makes a vast number of decisions a year. A party is more than a Prime Minister or even a collection of MPs: the overall ethos of a party will determine how it responds to those new circumstances, who it listens to, who its advisers are, who it appoints to key public positions⁸ and what the broad window of policy space it is operating in.

Unlike manifestos, these underlying ethoses don’t change much from year to year, or even decade to decade. In general, in any given circumstances, you can usually count on a right-wing government to tax less than a left-wing one would⁹, or to care more about free markets, and for a left-wing one to care more about helping the poor or to prioritise human rights. That’s not to say they never change: the Conservative and Labour parties have, famously, swapped places on Europe since the 1970s; it appears in the US that the Republican party has undergone a genuine shift towards protectionism. But in general, the underlying ethos is a good guide to the type of government you’re going to get.

Incidentally, this is a good reason why people shouldn’t be ashamed of being regular voters for one party or another. We often elevate ‘swing voters’, suggesting that they somehow make up their own minds more - but in fact, such voters may simply be closer to the political centre, and it is just as rational to always, or almost always, vote for the same party if it consistently represents you better.

Track record: The best guide to the future is sometimes the past - particularly if a party has not changed leaders. What have they done and how have they voted on the issues you care most about?

For the party in power, this is relatively easy to assess: their decisions will be national news and their impact can be immediately felt and seen. What have they delivered (or not) and is it good? Are they focusing on the right things? Have the decisions they made have positive consequences? What is the outcome of these decisions in the country at large? The only caution here is to be aware of what is, and is not, within the Government’s control: if a global economic phenomenon affects most countries in the west simultaneously - whether that’s the financial crisis or post-COVID inflation - it’s really not the government that happens to be in power’s fault¹⁰.

For parties not in power, it takes a bit more work. I don’t advise going back to the last time they were in power (unless it’s very recent). Instead, look at how they voted on things in Parliament. Is house-building important to you? Then how did they vote on house-building measures. Is crime your priority? How did they vote on criminal justice measures? Sites such as ‘They Work for You’ are not great here, but may be a first step - as can going back and looking at news reports from the last few years.

For both parties in power and out of it, beware of 11th hour pre-election enlightenments that are not reflected in the records.

‘Track record’ is also where one can consider whether a party keeps its pledges. Were commitments made at the last manifesto kept? If a leader ran for power on a certain platform, how many of the pledges made in that contest have been kept in the manifesto? No party or leader will have 100% - but this can give a sense of how trust-worthy and genuine their pledges are.

Finally here, a word on ‘punishing’ parties for a certain act that you see as particularly heinous, whether that is the Iraq War, breaking their pledge on tuition fees or Partygate. Game theory demands that there should be a penalty for such actions so I can’t blame anyone who chooses to use their vote this way. I would only say: have a high threshold for what counts as heinous behaviour (otherwise you’ll just be an anti-incumbent) and, for my part, I would think about whether the act is likely to be repeated - or says something relevant about how they will govern in future.

TIER 2

Party leader: A few years ago I would have ranked this higher, but with David Cameron in 2010 being the only Prime Minister since Tony Blair in 2001 to still be leader at the time of the next general election, this feels hard to justify. But leaders do matter: the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was very different to the Labour Party under Ed Miliband; the Conservative Party was a very different beast under David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher.

Competence: Some people would argue that this should be higher. But if you strongly disagree with a party, how competent do you want to be at pushing through their radical agenda? Also, figuring out which leader or party is ‘competent’ is pretty hard to do, particularly if they’re not in power¹¹ - you’re far more likely to end up going on the vibes. Still, competence does matter, not least because there’s a fair bit of common ground between all mainstream parties - we all want a country that basically functions - so this is worth paying attention to.

Character, corruption and scandal: Of both your local MP and of the party leader. Again, some people would argue that this should be higher - and I’m grateful to those who help keep our politics clear by prioritising it. For me, it would depend a lot upon the severity of the offence, whether it was repeated, and whether it was something that had a bearing on overall trustworthiness. One can’t say this is all important (what a party is going to do does matter) - but one can’t say it’s irrelevant either.

Local MP’s record on national issues: Where does your MP stand on matters that are important to you? Are they willing to defy the party line on it? Are they active in galvanising support and raising awareness - and driving action - on a cause that is important to you.

Be cautious on using this to determine your vote: most MPs vote with their party most of the time, and most back-bench MPs don’t have a big impact on the national agenda¹². It’s not very often that your own top priorities line up with what the issues where your MP is making a big impact distinct from what their party does. Beware of mistaking warm words for real action and impact.

But in some cases, there is no doubt that individual MPs can shape the national agenda and their broader party’s stance on something. Consider Steve Baker (Conservative) on Brexit in the 2010s, or Rosie Duffield (Labour) on gender and trans issues. Or, less dramatically, perhaps you like your MP’s record in cabinet (or shadow cabinet), or you care greatly about an issue they’ve campaigned relentlessly on, such as making adoption better. If you are fortunate enough to have such an MP - and their beliefs align with yours - this is a good reason to vote to keep their voice in Parliament.

TIER 3

Local MP’s record in the constituency: MPs do a lot of good work in the constituency - from campaigning on local issues to helping individual constituents. This is important and valuable work and every MP I’ve known has cared deeply about it. But there are two reasons to weight this lowly:

• As discussed above, a general election is about who governs the country. You have many other people (such as local councillors) who can help you locally; you have only one who is a representative in the national parliament.

• Most MPs, regardless of party, take these duties conscientiously. That’s why nearly all sitting MPs see an incumbency benefit. Where an MP can’t help someone it’s often because they simply can’t (i.e. it’s an issue they don’t have control over). Unless you have the rare exception, the difference between the candidates standing is unlikely to be great, and so should not be weighted too heavily.

That said, I understand why many people would weight this consideration higher, and if that’s how you wish to use your vote, there are far worse ways.

Tactical voting considerations: I don’t like tactical voting much, but it’s the price we pay in order to have a First Past the Post system¹³. But as a necessary evil, I recognise that sometimes stopping someone winning will be more important to someone than who actually wins. My caution would be that all parties are different - sometimes very different - even if nominally on the ‘left’ or right’¹⁴. But if this is you, then by all means take tactical voting into account.

TIER 4

MP or leader’s height: Unless you’re a Yank.

MP or leader’s sex and ethnicity: Enough said. And yes, it’s just as wrong to take this into account the other way round, too.

To send a message: Local elections¹⁵ are the place for ‘sending a message’. At a general election your vote will determine which party governs the country for five years: use it. [EDIT: On reflection, I think this should be higher, at least Tier 3 - see discussion in the comments.]

Whether MP lives in the constituency: A controversial one, I know - but many of our best Prime Ministers and Cabinet Members - from every party - were not local MPs. I accept that whether an MP lives in a constituency may impact their ability to be a good local MP

Number of leaflets received from each party: I often hear from people about ‘not even receiving a leaflet’ - but really, in the modern age, are there any other core decisions where you primarily rely on this as your chief means of communication rather than, oh, I don’t know, the internet? This also applies to other superficial things; for example, yes, it’s fantastic when an MP writes back with a customised message, but in reality don’t judge them too harshly when they send a standard response to something they’ll have received dozens, or even hundreds, or emails about.

Of course, all of these parameters are just guidelines. In any different election, different issues will come to the fore: in one, it may be the character of the leaders; in another, manifestos and record will dominate. Perhaps your local MP is an absolute champion on the issue most important to you. And do small advantages in a number of policy areas outweigh a major concern on something you consider fundamental, such as the economy, or national defence? Only you can decide what matters most - and which issues are the ones that matter.

Whichever way you decide, make sure you use your vote.

1. Though clearly us Brits would never be as foolish as our cousins across the Pond.

2. 2005, for those interested.

3. Or delegate, for the anti-Burkean readers out there.

4. One exception was in 2017, where Theresa May’s loss of her majority led to much of the 2017 manifesto being seen as invalidated and rejected by the electorate.

5. In contrast, Labour’s 1945 manifesto was a mere 5000 words long, or shorter than many posts on this site. As a society we have got wordier, which is not always a good thing (I recognise my complete hypocrisy here!).

6. Trains: love them or loathe them?

7. Though education outcomes did not noticeable improve during his tenure.

8. At least, so one would hope.

9. Yes, this is true even if the right-wing Government has raised taxes.

10. Though voters reliably punish incumbents nonetheless, here and elsewhere.

11. Though see ‘Track record’.

12. Of course, back-bench MPs can become front-bench MPs.

13. For more on why First Past the Post is the best system - not least because it allows us to decisively throw out governments when we are tired with them - see what I wrote earlier.

14. I can’t think of an occasion where I would consider tactical voting in England. But I might be tempted to vote for a pro-unionist party in Scotland if my favoured party couldn’t win.

15. Or European elections, in times gone by.