Results are in for the Hansard Society's nationwide Mock Elections. Thousands of pupils have cast their ballots and the results show that Labour has won the election among pupils across the country, with 27.3% of the vote.
39,312 pupils right across the country have cast a vote in the nationwide Mock Election campaign, giving many of them a first taste of civic participation and learning vital lessons about the way the UK's democratic processes work.
The results of the Mock Election are quite different from the picture that is emerging of the General Election:
Labour: 10,340 (27.3%)
Green: 8,714 (23.0%)
Reform: 7,020 (18.6%)
Lib Dem: 4,872 (12.9%)
Conservative: 3,617 (9.6%)
Scottish National Party (SNP): 310 (0.8%)*
Plaid Cymru: 159 (0.4%)*
Other: 2,788 (7.4%)**
Spoilt Ballots: 1,492
*The SNP and Plaid Cymru results should be treated with caution. The timing of the school holidays in Scotland and Wales meant that only a few schools took part. ** Some schools required candidates to set up their own non-established parties. A portion of the vote for other parties therefore comes from schools where none of the main parties were fielding a candidate.
2024 Mock Election results • The proportion of votes cast for each party standing in the mock elections
One of the oldest civic education projects anywhere in the world, Mock Elections has been run by the Hansard Society at every UK General Election for over 50 years.
In 2024, the Hansard Society again made available a free download of all the resources teachers and pupils needed to run a mock poll.
Research has shown that participating in citizenship-related activities at school, such as mock elections, makes young people more likely to have positive attitudes towards political participation as adults and more likely to engage in political activity. This applies even when controlling for other relevant factors, such as higher levels of formal education.
On the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Dr Sarah Whitmore will be speaking to us about how the Ukrainian Parliament has functioned under wartime conditions. 6:00pm-7:30pm on Tuesday 24 February 2026 at the Houses of Parliament, Westminster
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan reflects on rebelling against the whip and calling for Keir Starmer to resign, as we assess the fallout from the Mandelson–Epstein affair and its implications for the Government’s legislative programme and House of Lords reform. We examine Gordon Brown’s sweeping standards proposals, question whether they would restore public trust, revisit tensions over the assisted dying bill in the Lord and discuss two key Procedure Committee reports on Commons debates and internal elections. Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Acast · YouTube · Other apps · RSS
The Restoration and Renewal Client Board’s latest report once again confirms what Parliament has known for nearly a decade: the cheapest, quickest and safest way to restore the Palace of Westminster is for MPs and Peers to move out during the works. The “full decant” option was endorsed in 2018 and reaffirmed repeatedly since. Remaining in the building could more than double costs, extend works into the 2080s, and increase risks to safety, accessibility and security. With the Palace already deteriorating and millions spent each year on patchwork repairs, further delay would itself be an expensive course of action, one that defers decisions without offering a viable alternative.
With the Government investigating allegations of foreign influence in British politics, we are joined by John Pullinger, Chair of the Electoral Commission, to take stock of the health and resilience of the UK’s electoral system. Our discussion ranges widely over the pressures facing elections and campaigning today, and what issues Parliament may need to grapple with in a future elections bill.
Why do UK Prime Ministers seem to burn out so quickly? We are joined by historian Robert Saunders to examine why the role has become so punishing in recent years. From Brexit and COVID to fractured parties, rigid governing conventions and relentless media scrutiny, the discussion explores what has gone wrong – and what kind of leadership and political culture might be needed to make the job survivable again.
