Stop the small votes: the end of fringe and populist politics?

Perhaps fringe politics is the wrong word, acknowledging that Reform held a comfortable lead in public opinion polls for over a year until Starmer resigned, and the Greens have, at times in the last year, overtaken Labour. But there is no doubt that Reform are further right than the Conservatives, and the Greens further left than Labour. Both were once fringe parties, reflecting in their small number of MPs. And both are populists – something which I don’t like.

It is no surprise that my last two posts have been positive about Andy Burnham. He shares my politics almost exactly. I would describe us both as ambitious but pragmatic social democrats. I am sure Andy Burnham could make a compelling case for the abolition of tuition fees. I am also sure that he understands that it shouldn’t be priority number one in times of economic uncertainty. He is pro-city and pro-devolution. That’s where I land. Andy Burnham just has vastly superior experience and communication skills than me.

What I am more reluctant in admitting, but nonetheless fear I have to, is that Kemi Badenoch appears to have found her stride. She is morally coherent – if disagreeable – and appears to enjoy her job. She has momentum in the Tory Party, and has taken policy positions popular with its members. She is a good, and improving, public speaker. And she, with Andy Burnham’s help, is increasingly making a cut-through argument as to how the Conservatives will govern differently to Labour. I make no secret of the fact I would never vote Conservative, but I also hope to make no secret of the fact I will at least try to be objective.

There are real arguments now, between Labour and Conservatives, about the size of the state. They were always there, but perhaps less visible and for the wrong reasons. Conservatives have always been for a smaller state, but austerity was argued as from a place of necessity rather than an objectively better way to govern (and paired with, ahem, the triple lock). Boris Johnson’s levelling up agenda was, however you frame it, about wealth distribution. And the 2024 Conservative manifesto was a battle of damage reduction and getting out the core voter base with policies like the quadruple lock and national service rather than a legitimate ideological vision.

This led to the left and the right both seeing different versions of one reality. On the left you have commonplace language such as Red Tories amongst Green supporters, with people disappointed that Keir Starmer didn’t go far enough to distance himself from the Conservative Party. On the right, Reform push the language of the uniparty, trying to make voters believe that there are no legitimate differences between the parties. For a while, this worked.

Now a perfect storm is brewing which is bringing people back to the old red/blue politics for better or for worse. It’s not entirely reflected in the polls yet – and so I do hope my speculation proves correct – but whisper it quietly, I think it will. There is more charisma and divide between Labour and Conservatives, yes. But there is also something else.

The Greens’ conference appears to have been a disaster and for many swing voters, the more they see of Zack Polanski the less they like him. I am certainly in that category, given he is a self-proclaimed populist, and I don’t much care for populists. Its conference was divisive at times with most Green MPs (and Zack Polanski) opposing the “Zionism is racism” motion which was passed by its members, rejecting an internationally- and Palestinian-supported two-state solution. It was uglier at other times, with members rejecting safeguards against disciplining party members for affiliation with Jewish institutions which identify as Zionist.

Left-wing journalist Owen Jones tweeted a phrase which wouldn’t have looked out of place from Rupert Lowe:

There is nothing racist about any ethnic or religious group wanting their own homeland.

He does go on to say that “Zionism in practice meant ‘a homeland at the expense of the Palestinians’,” and that this was why Zionism is racism. Without getting into an in depth essay on Palestinian liberation, this exposes the rifts forming on the left, and the arguments which are perhaps morally murky at times . It also exposes where party democracy can become over-democracy, with members attempting to decide a leader’s policy for them. My interest in the constitution always leads me to believe that a party must decide what is sovereign, and where policy comes from, and seek to not have formal party mechanisms which fundamentally undermine this. In well-established parties, I believe sovereignty should lie with MPs, and democracy should be exercised by members through MPs rather than in spiteof them. This is why Corbyn’s leadership was a disaster regardless of where you sit politically: sovereign MPs being overwritten by party members creates an ungovernable mess. The Greens are at risk of this and it may turn ugly.

Tomorrow is the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. Zack Polanski is on the ballot. It is a liberal, London constituency. It is the seat of the most unpopular Prime Minister in living memory. If Zack Polanski fails to win it, it will be difficult to spin, and it could well spark the end of his charismatic leadership and fresh divides in the Green Party. People do buy into Polanski’s populism – that is why it’s called populism – and it remains to be seen whether another leader could have the same galvanising effect.

On the other side of the aisle chasm, Reform are slowly but surely slipping in the polls. There was once a time – see their repeated success in the polls below – where they looked sure to be the dominant party in votes, even if not in seats, come the next general election. Their messaging was slick, their campaigning was dirty, and they captured people’s anger. The public were shifting to the populist right based on their frustration with the cost of living, immigration, and the undefined woke liberal elite. It was easy to see that people were frustrated with the Conservative and Labour governments and so the natural place for them to go if they leant right was Reform. This was always going to happen – the Conservatives’ record in government was high tax, poor services, not enough prison spaces, and a poor delivery record. To many people, Labour was unappealing and more of the same disappointment.

As time has gone on, however, Reform have got dirtier and dirtier. Their image is no longer of that of political outsiders but rather dirty money. They have underperformed in recent by-elections, and their record where they are in power in local government will do them a disservice. As with all populists, they are successful until they have to keep their promises; one Reform council in the north of England has recently received criticism for shutting nurseries. Each promise they have been given a chance to keep has gone poorly. How is finding waste in councils going, Mr Farage?

This dirtying of their image, combined with an obvious change in both the Labour and Conservative parties, might just mean Reform too has peaked. The improving communication of both parties mean that there is now a clearly left wing government and a clearly right wing opposition. The right may be returning to the Conservatives just as the left return to Labour. Kemi Badenoch may have been correct this week when she said a battle of ideas is coming.

Long read: Brexit, Corbyn, and regicide: Why parliamentary sovereignty is not to be challenged

“The public doesn’t bring down Prime Ministers; Parliament does.”

The sovereignty of Parliament has never been shown to be so obviously so important compared to now. No matter how loud the views are amongst the grassroots of a party or a cause – it must command a majority within Parliament, or at least within the Parliamentary Party. I could talk about my opinions on Parliament and the Lords and the electoral system – in fact, I did in my first draft of this post – but that isn’t relevant here and now. What matters is that every party learns and understands that it runs the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past if it does not begin to quickly listen to the realities of a world-class political system.

Liz Truss is, by every single measure conceivable, the worst Prime Minister we’ve had. Probably ever, certainly in modern history. By time in office, by number of u-turns, by policies delivered, by confidence of her own MPs, by confidence of the Commons, by the value of the pound. She has been so poor. And, this may be controversial, but I do not believe it to be something extraordinary about Liz Truss that has caused this issue. She was no weaker than May, and her policies were no more outlandish than Thatcher. The combination may have been fatal for her, but there is more to it than that.

The results of the (first) 2022 Conservative leadership election give it away. She came third in the first four rounds of MP ballots, and second in the final round. She entered office without a majority of her own Parliamentary party. Her mandate is Parliamentary, and Parliament’s mandate is the public. One of my deepest and most pragmatic beliefs about our democracy is that it is, and should remain, Parliamentary. There should be no constitutional requirement for a general election if a leader changes. Sure, opposition parties are right to call for one and I would like one, but there should not be a constitutional requirement. And so, whilst the governing party had an effective mandate from the public (regardless of your views on FPTP), the leader had no mandate from the governing party’s sovereign body: MPs. The party of regicide was always going to oust her as leader if she did not gain their confidence quickly. She didn’t. They did.

This could be a little different if she started out in opposition and gained MPs. Boris Johnson was so successful on Brexit because he was so ruthless with the MPs that he gained; any MP who ran in the 2019 election had to support his Brexit deal. Therefore, there’s a theoretical argument that opposition parties have a little more leeway with this and can listen to their members more, as they can – if they get into government – force their majorities into having confidence in them. This is only if you get into government, though, which brings me fairly smoothly onto my next point: if you’re an opposition party, it’s harder to get into government if you don’t have the confidence of your party. This shouldn’t be followed quite so stringently as it should be if you are in government; I know if I was still in the Labour Party, I’d want a say on the leader (and did in fact have a say on the leader last time). The 2016 Labour leadership election showed the flaws of this though, with 172 MPs against Corbyn, and 40 supporting him, he won the leadership election. He was never going to be able to unite or govern effectively, no matter how good his campaigning was.

This also applies to policy. The Brexit referendum probably made political sense to Cameron at the time. There was a rising party, UKIP, taking votes from him, threatening his MP’s majorities in swing seats. So, to shut them up and stop them from taking votes, calling a referendum and winning it wasn’t a bad thing to do. The problem was what ensued afterwards, which has only become clear in hindsight. The Tory Party at the time was mostly remain-supporting, including Truss herself, a member of Cameron’s cabinet. Theresa May took over – who supported remain – and tried to deliver Brexit with a Labour Party opposed to her and a Conservative Party opposed to Brexit. The result of the 2017 election made things no clearer, with Labour running a Brexiteer candidate in Corbyn with a policy to remain in the EU, and the Conservatives running remainer May with a policy to leave the EU. How can a parliament have confidence in a policy when it isn’t entirely sure who supports it and who is against it? Boris Johnson seemed to, for all his flaws and corruption, understand the necessity of a clear unambiguous Parliamentary majority to deliver a policy.

In comparison, take the two most successful and influential politicians in modern Britain, Thatcher and Blair. They both had one crucial thing in common, which was the command and confidence of their parliamentary Party. The public doesn’t bring down Prime Ministers; Parliament does. When you realise this, and understand that the public didn’t bring down Thatcher, or Blair, or Cameron, or May, or Johnson, or Truss, this concept becomes significantly more important.

Imagine if Thatcher had been elected without the votes of her Parliamentary party. On the same policies, with the same backing from her party members and the same view from public, but with the Conservative MPs giving their support to a hypothetical alternative candidate. Her character would not have changed, and nor would have her ideology, but she would have found herself in a position that could have very quickly become untenable. She was an effective if disagreeable opposition leader and Prime Minister not because she had the backing of significant grassroots organisations, but because she respected the sovereignty of the House of Commons and its importance in deciding the fate of an Opposition Leader and a Prime Minister. Blair’s mandate did not come from the party members – Corbyn had a bigger backing of party members than Blair did, albeit not by much. But, put two opposition leaders up side by side, one with the backing from their Parliamentary party and another with grassroots support. Nine times out of ten, I believe, the one with backing from Parliament will be more successful than the one with grassroots support. The public can vote for somebody who does not have the support of various grassroots movements – they can’t vote for one who doesn’t have the backing of their own legislators. If they do, it will only be a matter of time before downfall from within.