It was little more than a year ago that Oliver Dowden stood up at Conservative spring conference to praise the “calm suburbia of Hertfordshire”, home to his own Hertsmere constituency, and vowed to defend the “privet hedges of a free people”. But after Thursday’s local elections, the deputy prime minister’s proverbial privet hedges now have gaping holes in them. For the first time this millennium, his party lost control of the true blue Hertfordshire council. In a deeply troubling sign for Rishi Sunak, the Tories lost 13 seats in Hertsmere, which his party has run since 1999, leaving a hung council. After a night of devastating losses that exceeded even the party’s prediction of losing 1,000 councillors – initially designed as a piece of pre-election expectation management – the Conservatives have 16 seats on the council, four short of the 20 needed for a majority. Now facing them is a coalition of anti-Tory forces. Labour, which made gains in Borehamwood and Potters Bar, has 14 and the Liberal Democrats nine. The sentiment in the constituency among voters tells the story of this disastrous set of results for Sunak’s party. After Hertsmere’s 24 years under Tory control, in Borehamwood on Friday the most commonly uttered two words on the streets to describe how people voted were: “Not Conservative.”
Among them was Matt Clark, 42, a maintenance operative, saying it was “someone else’s turn now”. He added: “The Tories have had 13 years – and in Borehamwood they’ve had a lot longer. They’re going to lose the general election.” He had no faith in the last two prime ministers and criticised Sunak’s personal use of capital gains tax. But his view of Labour and Keir Starmer was not necessarily much better. “Starmer trying to outdo Rishi and Rishi trying to outdo Starmer. They’re all morons in their own way.” He voted Leave in the Brexit referendum, but felt hugely let down by it now. “Because of all the things we were promised. The NHS was promised £350m and that never happened. They told us all these new opportunities for the country would come about and they never did.” “I did vote, not for the Tories,” said Jodie Sharp, 43, a company owner from the town. Ordinarily, she would be a potential Conservative voter, but not this time, saying Labour was “better for the community”. While apathy appears to have hit all parties, one Tory voter said he felt too “disheartened and disconnected” to vote. Another described Sunak as “a wet lettuce” and criticised Starmer for not being clear on his policies. As the final results across England were collated and announced on Saturday, the message became ever clearer. Arguments can be made about the level of support Labour received and whether it puts Starmer on course, as he insisted, for a majority at the next election. What was unequivocal, however, was that this was an anti-Tory set of results. The party’s 26% projected national vote share was one of its worst performances and at the lowest end of expectations. Meanwhile, there were huge wins by the Lib Dems and the Greens, who gained 405 and 241 seats respectively. The council gains made by Labour, despite a 35% vote share that was good if not spectacular, suggest a brutally efficient arrangement of the anti-Tory troops. “It is true that in the 1995 locals, prior to [Tony] Blair’s 1997 landslide, Labour got a 47% share of the vote, compared with 35% now,” said former Tory adviser Sam Freedman. “But the Tories were in almost exactly the same place on 25%. The main shift between 1995 and 2023 is in the distribution of the anti-Tory vote, not its existence. Sunak is in just as bad a position as [John] Major was then, and without even a once-in-a-generation political talent like Blair to blame it on.” As a result, the Lib Dems prospered in the Hertsmeres of the south-east, while Labour secured gains in urban centres and towns where the party collapsed after Brexit and in the 2019 general election. The Lib Dems are understandably excited about what it could mean for an election and the number of senior Tories who could be in trouble. They say they have made 132 net gains in council areas represented by cabinet ministers. They are now targeting the likes of Michael Gove, Gillian Keegan, Jeremy Hunt and Mel Stride. “Former Conservative strongholds, from Surrey to Stratford-on-Avon, are now looking more vulnerable than ever,” said a Lib Dem strategist. “Cabinet ministers who have always taken their voters for granted will be looking nervously over their shoulders at the threat posed by the Lib Dems.” And, crucially, there are now structural changes that are a problem for the Conservatives. Unlike in previous elections since the days of David Cameron, after the demise of Ukip and the Brexit party, there is no longer a bank of voters on the right who the party can expect to flock to its banner come a general election. It leaves a series of intriguing and related questions before the next election about what will happen to this anti-Tory vote. The local election results saw a significant amount of tactical voting. In some cases, such as Bracknell Forest in Berkshire, parties appeared to stand aside for each other. In other areas, cooperation was more subtle but clearly taking place. Supporters of “progressive alliances” hope it is a sign of something happening. “We are witnessing a pitch invasion of local electoral politics,” said Neal Lawson, director of cross-party campaign group Compass. “Local parties, activists and voters are fed up with losing apart and are now working under the radar to cooperate and win together. Cross-party working must now take centre stage to ensure the Tories lose the next election.” A critical unknown is how those who voted Lib Dem and Green will behave come the general election next year. Could they then flock to Labour, or will some in the south-east go back to the Tories? Or could they stick with the smaller parties in places where they are strong? “This combination of fragmentation and tactical coordination brings both risk and opportunity for Labour,” writes Robert Ford, professor of political science at Manchester University, in Sunday’s Observer. Ford was part of the BBC team that calculated the all-important national vote share implied by the local elections. “Some of those backing smaller parties may be voters who reject the Conservatives yet also remain unconvinced by Labour. Labour cannot be certain of their future support. Yet growing evidence of an electorate sufficiently angry at Tory incumbents to back whoever stands a chance of defeating them may presage tactical voting on a scale not seen since 1997.” Yet even as the themes of the result become clear, there was also a sense in Hertsmere that voters are still waiting to be inspired by any party or leader – the main task facing Starmer between now and the election.
Shelley Rowson, 67, a lifelong Labour voter until Blair’s leadership, lives alone in Borehamwood, where she has been for nearly 40 years. She did not vote on Thursday. “It was a very conscious choice,” she said. “Personally, I think they’re all rubbish, I don’t trust any of them.” She added: “It makes it really difficult for me because I don’t agree with the Conservatives and I don’t agree with Labour.” The Lib Dems, she believes, have not seized the moment. Party leaders, she said, need to show that that they “actually care about the people of this country. People are falling into debt, losing their homes and when they lose their homes they don’t do anything to help them. It’s devastating.” Labour councillor Jeremy Newmark, leader of the opposition at Hertsmere borough council, said multiple factors were at play in this election, including the Conservatives’ local plan, which he said would have “decimated” the green belt, the council’s Conservative leadership and an improved standing for Labour among Jewish voters. “It was a bit of a rollercoaster ride but already 18 months ago we had a sense that the mood was ripe for change,” he said.