The Stakes of the Next UK General Election
The Stakes of the Next UK General Election
Britain’s dysfunctions are becoming insupportable in raw arithmetic terms.
Talk to anyone in the UK about the prospects for their country, and the mood could hardly be bleaker. The Britain many of us grew up with—with its relatively buoyant economy, its well-functioning services and its high-trust, cohesive society—feels like it is disintegrating at pace, if it has not already disappeared.
This is why the next general election, which must be held at some point between now and August 2029, feels destined to be a hinge point in British history. Where most elections are fought between two sets of managerial technocrats, with minor variations in policy, the stakes this time could hardly be higher. Whichever party wins—whether one of the tired, old centrist parties like the Tories or Labour, or one of the resurgent, more radical outfits like Reform UK on the right or the Green Party on the left—will inherit a status quo that has simply run out of road. Keeping the same policies in place, letting things carry on as they are, is no longer an option for a nation that wants to avoid ruin. Indeed, each of the starkest problems facing Britain—mass immigration, welfare dependency, deindustrialization, and soaring public indebtedness—would be enough on its own to bankrupt the state and destabilize society. Yet these challenges are not only concurrent; they often intersect and reinforce each other.
Take immigration. According to polling, immigration is the number-one issue facing the UK, and it has been for some time. What’s more, Britons are more likely than any other people on Earth to cite immigration as their nation’s leading problem. And rightly so. The rates of legal and illegal migration are fast becoming unsustainable.
Around 50,000 migrants flood into the UK each year on small boats via the English Channel. Few who arrive illegally are deported. Instead, they apply for asylum, at which point they are housed at the taxpayers’ expense, often in hotels that have been commandeered by the Home Office, and invited to make use of Britain’s public services. Those who gain refugee status (around 80 percent, after appeals) can then start claiming welfare payments (around 66 percent do). The few who fail to gain asylum are highly unlikely to be removed from the country; indeed, many are not even removed from the housing that’s provided to them.
The most obvious and politically potent consequence of this endless flow of illegal migrants is the staggering levels of violent and sexual crime they are bringing to Britain. Open a newspaper any day of the week and you’ll be confronted with headlines such as: “Small-boat migrant guilty of Brighton beach rape ‘on run for murder’”; “Migrant who kidnapped girl, 7, and sexually assaulted her in asylum hotel arrived in UK after working for Taliban”; “Somali knifeman admits killing pensioner, 77, at Remembrance Sunday memorial service.” Such stories are now routine, although the existence of a pattern in migrant offending is vehemently denied by the left-of-center parties.
While illegal migration poses almost incalculable social costs, the greater cost to the taxpayer actually comes from legal migration. Under the current rules, anyone who is given “leave to remain” (ILR – the British term for permanent residency, a stage before full citizenship) can begin to claim welfare benefits, such as Universal Credit, either if they are unemployed or to top up their income or cover housing costs, if they are on low pay. This year, 2026, is when the first of the so-called Boriswave of migrants—that is, 1.6 million legal migrants who arrived between 2020 and 2024—will become eligible for ILR. The Centre for Policy Studies estimates that the lifetime net fiscal cost to the state of these mostly low-skilled, low-paid migrants could be a staggering £234 billion over the course of this cohort’s lifetime. Mass immigration could soon be adding to, rather than alleviating, Britain’s unsustainable growth in welfare spending.
To his credit, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is planning to radically restrict rules on entitlements to newcomers before the Boriswave can start accessing state funds, but he is facing opposition from his own MPs and a resurgent Green Party. Handing benefits to migrants may be as popular as asbestos with ordinary members of the public, but it has recently become a bizarre rallying cry for the left.
The other major strain on the welfare state has been the sharp rise in incapacity claimants. One in 10 working-age people in Britain is now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Bleaker still, claims are rising fastest among the young, surging by 69 percent among 25- to 34-year-olds in the past five years. Much of the increase in claims relates not to physical disabilities but to mental health. Indeed, 44 percent of newer claimants cite poor mental health as their primary condition. According to the Taxpayers’ Alliance think tank, an astonishing 110,000 adults in England are now claiming “personal independence payments” for anxiety and depression, up from 24,000 in 2019. The British fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), estimates that disability benefits cost around £76 billion in 2024, which could rise to nearly £100 billion per year by the end of the decade. Starmer’s modest attempts at reform were defeated by his party’s left, meaning that any hope of bringing this spending under control will need a change of government.
Those claiming disability benefits are responding to two things. First, the incentives offered by the system, the ease with which one can be classified as “disabled” by claiming to have mental-health troubles. Second, a genuine lack of jobs and opportunities, especially for the young, in an era of economic stagnation and deindustrialization. This, too, is like a problem that will never be resolved by the current party in power.
After all, the Labour Party, especially in the form of Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, is fanatically devoted to the economy-destroying “net zero” at seemingly any cost. Thanks to more than a decade of governments deliberately throttling domestic oil and gas production while rushing to embrace renewable energy, the UK is burdened with some of the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. The consequences have been catastrophic, leading to the closure in just the past few years of Scotland’s last oil refinery, Britain’s last blast furnaces capable of producing virgin steel, a 120-year-old minivan factory, and much more. The nation that gave birth to the Industrial Revolution will be the first to reverse it.
Yet even as the economy has stalled, government spending has skyrocketed. The result is an ever-growing debt burden and rising borrowing costs. The UK currently pays an interest rate of 4.8 per cent on 10-year bonds, the highest in the G7. Of the world’s top economies, Britain has also suffered the biggest jump in borrowing costs after the war in Iran broke out. To put this in a domestic context, the cost of servicing Britain’s debt is now £114 billion a year—more than is spent on defense, transport, and housing combined. Alarmingly, the cost of borrowing is so high that it cannot even be offset by large tax rises. The highest tax burden since the Second World War is not enough to cover what the Labour government wants to spend. The result is a fiscal doom loop, where the government is forced to borrow to cover its borrowing costs.
All of this is why Britain increasingly feels like a ticking time bomb. Illegal immigration is already tearing society apart, while mass legal migration, welfare dependency and deindustrialization are adding to the looming economic crisis. Britain is not unsalvageable, but it does require leaders who are prepared to treat its problems with the urgency they warrant. Whatever political party voters opt for in the next general election, they know in their bones that this is almost certainly the last chance to stop their country’s slide into terminal decline.
The post The Stakes of the Next UK General Election appeared first on The American Conservative.