Politics student Ethan Harvey argues that the Labour government, despite its majority, is deeply out of touch with public opinion—both on economic policy and controversial moral issues like abortion—highlighting a growing disconnect between political elites and the values of mainstream Britain.
Whatever your opinion of this Labour government, there is one point we can all agree on: they have failed to read the electorate’s mood.
Despite winning a majority of 156 seats, the government’s current net approval rating, as of June 2025, is -45%.
This is among the lowest approval ratings and highlights the foolish decisions made under the false pretence of fiscal responsibility.
Instead of implementing sensible spending cuts, such as on foreign benefits or unreliable, developing green technologies, this inept government chose to penalise working people.
It started by cutting winter fuel allowances to save £1.9 billion but later reversed course to reinstate them in a reduced form, resulting in only £450 million in savings. At the same time, the inheritance tax on family farms alienated farmers already burdened with excessive regulation. One only needs to watch a minute of Clarkson’s Farm to see how government overreach hampers farmers, especially the environmental red tape that makes it nearly impossible to achieve anything. Additionally, we must not forget the grim rise in national insurance for employers, which affected small and medium-sized businesses alongside the increase in the minimum wage.
The problem is that this government struggles to comprehend public opinion and garner support. This is not surprising, considering the party received the lowest vote share of any post-war majority government. Eighty per cent of registered voters opted not to support Labour. Another way the government is out of step with public opinion is on abortion.
Abortion was decriminalised in the UK after the majority of 242 MPs voted in favour of the NC1 amendment introduced by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. This means women will no longer face prosecution for terminating pregnancies at any stage, effectively repealing the existing criminal law on abortion. The current abortion law, as set out in the Abortion Act 1967, considers abortion a criminal offence but permits it with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks and only under limited circumstances, such as when the mother’s health is at risk or the fetus has abnormalities. The background behind the decision relates to a measure quietly introduced during the pandemic in 2020, which allowed women with a gestational age of fewer than ten weeks to take prescribed medication (mifepristone and misoprostol) at home. This involved abortion pills sent by post following a telephone consultation. This created a social dilemma for left-wing activists and public officials after the prosecution of six women who violated the abortion law by using the tablets after ten weeks without realising it. For instance, Nicola Packer went on trial after taking the abortion pills at 26 weeks pregnant but received no sentence on the grounds that she did not know she was more than ten weeks pregnant.
Cultural and social advocates on the left, often atheists, have supported lenient abortion laws for decades, expressing dissatisfaction with current legislation. This is despite our abortion laws being more liberal than those of many European countries, where the limit is 12 weeks. The ideological zeal that drives postmodern social advocates on the left—an ethos influencing a disproportionate number of our politicians—could lead sceptics to suggest the idea of manufactured consent. For controversial policy changes, especially those involving matters of conscience, it is necessary to be somewhat indifferent or agnostic about the issue for it to pass peacefully without causing public outrage. When an issue like abortion liberalisation becomes contentious, it may be necessary to orchestrate an event with media support to foster a sense of public consensus. The aim is to uphold the strength of the social contract between the people and the government.
In this case, only 1% of women supported abortion up to birth, according to a ComRes poll. Sceptics would point to the pills-by-post controversy as the event used to manufacture consent, introduced during the COVID pandemic. It was clear at the time that such a measure would likely lead to prosecutions for alleged breaches of the ten-week limit, yet it was implemented without proper scrutiny or public consultation. Radical social Marxists manipulated the way the prosecution was presented in the media as a social injustice linked to an outdated abortion law, thereby sparking public debate on decriminalisation.
However, unlike other cases of manufactured consent where public opinion shifts, the political climate in Britain was not ready to hold a national debate on abortion. While most women privately opposed the law change, our intolerant political environment—where any socially dissenting opinion faces immediate hostility from the media—prevented the other side from expressing their views. This reflects the marginalisation of social conservative voices, similar to what happened during the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013. It supports Vance’s statement that free speech is under threat in the UK. We have seen this with the prosecution of Christians praying silently near abortion clinics, even in a house within an abortion buffer zone. Therefore, although the theory of manufactured consent has some truth regarding pills-by-post, a politically tolerant environment meant that the silent majority would keep their opinions private, especially as Christians are often arrested for spreading the gospel in public.
It is worth noting that the amendment could have been even more extreme. Creasy’s amendment would have removed all legal bans on abortion up to birth, making it lawful to terminate pregnancies when the child is capable of surviving outside the womb. It would also repeal sections of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act that criminalise attempts to conceal a child’s birth. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood condemned it as extreme, along with other moderates and abortion providers. However, the most notable aspect was the ‘human rights framework’ that accompanied it, emphasising safe access to abortion rights for women.
It is striking because it presents a paradox, as the amendment would have jeopardised human rights. It becomes more difficult to investigate infanticide, with few legal protections for unborn children and no legal recourse in cases where an abusive partner causes the death of an unborn baby. The human rights language, therefore, conceals the bill’s wickedness, similar to the linguistic techniques used in the assisted suicide bill, which employs euphemisms like ‘life-ending medication’ to sanitise its harmful content.
While Creasy’s amendment is not open to parliamentary debate, it is worrying that 100 MPs supported the bill. Nonetheless, the amendment indicates a breakdown in democracy. Labour never promised this change in its manifesto, unlike with the Assisted Dying Bill, and its covert inclusion in the Crime and Policing Bill meant it was only debated for three hours. This disregards the 70% of women who favour lowering the 24-week limit. A similar case occurred in Northern Ireland when it legalised abortion despite 79% opposition. This shows how liberal support for abortion among left-wing officials and intellectuals is disconnected from broader society, where it remains a niche issue.
Something that is not a fringe issue, however, is the disdain for abortion pills. As mentioned earlier, the pills arrived during COVID and later became part of the statute book in an unrelated bill in 2022. This was a covert way of implementing a controversial policy that ignored the health risks involved. Over ten thousand women required hospital treatment in the first eighteen months of the scheme due to misuse, and the spiking of one woman in December 2024 with an abortion pill led to the death of her unborn child. This prompted 30 MPs to support an amendment to ban the unsupervised use of abortion pills. If the government cared about our opinions, it would listen to these MPs, especially as only 4% of women support pills-by-post.
Advocates of the amendment argue that women should not be prosecuted for late-term abortions. However, this assumes a high number of prosecutions. Prior to 2022, there had been only three prosecutions for illegal abortion over 160 years. Meanwhile, ideological zeal has led politicians to conceal the risks associated with the amendment, which include coercion to undergo an abortion, potential medical complications, and sex-selective abortions, 91% of which oppose.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that the amendment would lead to the termination of fully developed babies. In Victoria, Australia, many late-term abortions are unsuccessful, and unsupervised home abortions pose risks to women. The elite’s disregard for public opinion caused them to pass this abortion amendment at a time when 93% of womensupport independent counselling before abortion. Additionally, medical advances now enable babies to be born at 22 weeks and survive, prompting calls to lower the limit to that gestational age. This attempt was unsuccessful in 2024. Lastly, prioritising the well-being of women would mean the government must prohibit late-stage abortions due to the health risks involved.
In conclusion, the abortion amendment mocks many Brits who oppose liberalisation, while elites resent the social conservatism still prevalent in Middle England, where Christian morals remain part of the fabric of society. However, backdoor implementation is often necessary to enact unpopular policies. Simultaneously, the abandonment of democracy on moral issues, such as the case of same-sex marriage in 2013—which did not appear in a manifesto—is common. Yet, the dogmatic beliefs of elites led them to dismiss evidence against abortion liberalisation—regarding legal safeguards and medical progress—while ignoring public opinion. These beliefs caused them to overlook health risks for both mother and child, yet they tolerated the killing of fully formed children.
By Ethan Harvey, Politics Undergraduate Student and Great British PAC Campus Leader for the University of Warwick.
Image: For illustration purposes only. Image created with AI.
