After a difficult set of election results last week, Labour MPs are arguing about whether to change direction, either to the left or the right. But, in a recent article, Jeevun Sandher, Labour MP for Loughborough, and an economist who has specialised in poverty research, argues that neither is the answer. Voters are leaving the party in both directions. And it’s because of a shared concern that they can no longer afford a decent life.
He argues that the election results show a clear trend of economically insecure voters abandoning Labour. Nearly half of Labour’s 2024 voters who are struggling financially no longer support the party, in contrast to just a third of economically secure voters. These disillusioned voters are moving in two different but equally radical directions. Non-graduates who struggle to find well-paying jobs are turning to Reform, while younger graduates, especially renters, are leaning toward the Greens due to high housing costs and a lack of affordable homeownership.
Beyond left and right
Sandher sees this not as a traditional Left versus Right political divide, but as a battle between the “Mainstream Sensibles” and “Radical Outsiders.” The current party leadership of Mainstream Sensibles believe that a long-term strategy will ultimately pay off. But voters are impatient, and Reform and the Greens represent the outsiders, offering solutions – however unconventional or untested – that speak to voters’ urgent financial anxieties. He compares two contrasting wards in constituencies which are both traditionally safe for Labour.
In Horden, County Durham, 2019 was the first time Labour’s vote share fell below 60%. Here, 85% of the population did not attend university, and the local economy has never recovered from deindustrialisation following the pit closures of the 1980s. The area is one of the most deprived in the country, with average earnings almost £100 per week below the national average. A typical two-parent family with two children requires two incomes of £35,000 each to live decently, yet the average non-graduate earns just £29,500. With few prospects for economic advancement, voters here are supporting Reform in search of radical change.
Herne Hill, South London was also a Labour stronghold. It has had a Labour MP since its creation in 1997, rarely with a vote share below 50%. But here, young, graduate renters face unaffordable housing. House prices average £565,000 – twelve times the average income – and rents are rising by 8% annually. Without wealthy parents to help, many feel locked out of any future financial security. These voters are gravitating towards the Greens, drawn by their promises of systemic reform to tackle housing inequality and environmental concerns.
Although the two demographics are distinct in education, geography, and social issues, both suffer from the same structural problem: mainstream politics has not made life affordable. Sandher argues that if Labour wants to win again, it must appeal to both simultaneously by addressing the cost of living crisis in concrete, visible ways.
Two strategies
He proposes two overarching strategies: lowering essential living costs and creating good jobs for non-graduates. On cost reduction, significant investment in clean energy and home insulation could cut energy bills. Clean energy is now far cheaper than natural gas, and better insulation ensures that households can make their energy go further. Energy pricing reforms could also lower rates for modest users, and further council tax reductions, which already help 3.6 million people, could help low-income households.
To address housing affordability, Labour should build more homes – particularly affordable housing – and reform mortgage policies to allow renters to qualify for loans if their potential mortgage payments are lower than their current rents. This would help young renters transition to homeownership, reducing their reliance on intergenerational wealth.
And revitalising post-industrial areas like Horden, requires a shift away from outdated hopes of reviving manufacturing. Instead, Labour should invest in sectors like childcare, elder care, home retrofitting, and infrastructure rebuilding – areas that offer many good non-graduate jobs. These investments could address the isolation of many Reform-leaning communities, which often lack basic infrastructure, like major roads.
Losing to the left will cost even more than losing to Reform
Sandher points out that losing Green-leaning voters can be just as electorally damaging as losing those to Reform, even if the Greens don’t win seats directly. In Runcorn, Labour lost because just seven Green voters chose not to back them. As we have previously reported, polling suggests that losing all Green-curious voters would cost Labour 250 seats – more than double the loss if all Reform-curious voters left.
So, Sandher argues that Labour’s historic 2024 coalition is fraying because too many of its constituents simply cannot afford a good life. The party’s ability to reclaim its electoral strength depends on solving this affordability crisis. Only by investing in cost-cutting infrastructure and creating well-paid non-graduate jobs can Labour provide a compelling alternative to the radical promises of Reform and the Greens.
He believes that if Labour can deliver economic security, it wins the next election. If it doesn’t, it loses.
This article is based on one by Jeevun Sandher, the full text is available on the Labour List website.
