Power of two: Ed Miliband and David Cameron at the State Opening of Parliament in June. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The end of the “two-party” party

The Conservatives and Labour could once boast of membership of over two million. Today the figure for both is under 200,000. The decline has deleterious practical effects for them.

In 1951, 97 per cent of the electorate voted for one of the two main parties in Britain. By 2010, this had fallen to 65 per cent – and, according to a new poll published by the psephologist and Tory peer Michael Ashcroft, just 59 per cent of those who vote in May’s general election will opt for the Conservatives or Labour.

Rather than seeking to expand their electoral base, both main parties are defensively pursuing core vote strategies. As George Eaton writes on page 22, “Unable to inspire itself, Labour has never seemed further from inspiring the country.” Little better can be said of the Conservatives. Relentless tub-thumping on immigration, including the notorious “Go home” vans, demonisation of welfare recipients and “banging on” about Europe of the sort David Cameron once railed against have combined, in the argot, to retoxify the Conservative brand. The latest ruse from George Osborne was to send letters to taxpayers showing them how their money was spent. In and of itself, such transparency should be applauded but lumping unemployment benefit, in-work tax credits, disability living allowance and public-sector pensions under the banner of “welfare” was disingenuous.

The Conservatives and Labour could once boast of membership of over two million. Today the figure for both is under 200,000. The decline has two deleterious practical effects for them. First, it reduces their campaign funds. This is particularly problematic for Labour, which will be outspent by at least two to one in the election. It also matters for the Conservatives, increasing their dependence on hedge fund managers and leading to the drip-drip of donation stories that reinforce the perception of them as the party of the rich. The second consequence is a lack of activists on the ground, limiting the parties’ ability to mount powerful campaigns outside their heartlands. The collapse in membership could be disastrous for Labour in Scotland: the SNP now has more than 80,000 members, compared with less than 10,000 for Labour north of the border.

The Blair government’s decisions to devolve power to Scotland and Wales and introduce proportional representation in the European elections were a boon to challenger parties. But if these decisions accelerated the growth of insurgent parties, they are not singularly responsible for them. The spasm of “Cleggmania” at the last election and the rise of the SNP, Ukip and even the Green Party are manifestations of the long-run simmering loathing of the political class. Both the Conservatives and Labour have been acquiescent in this.

In many ways the decline of the two main parties is deeply unsatisfactory. It is not good that the Conservatives appear to have written off most of Scotland and much of the English north; the same is true for Labour south of London. Given the scale of the social and economic challenges that the UK faces, the prospect of no government (even a coalition) having a mandate after the next election is worrying. Britain remains lumbered with a voting system that is a two-party relic in a multiparty age.

It could be worse. In the US, on 4 November, the Democrats suffered a bruising result in the midterm elections, confirming that Barack Obama will govern for the last two years as a hugely diminished president. But if this was a protest vote, it was not clear what the US public was protesting against. In an exit poll, just 19 per cent of voters said that they approved of Congress, yet they opted to return the overwhelming majority of these congressmen to office. This owes nothing to satisfaction with them. It is the result of the financial, constitutional and administrative barriers to entry that the Democrats and Republicans put up to prevent the rise of challenger parties.

While Britain does not follow the proportional voting systems favoured by continental Europe, it does allow for a more pluralistic politics. The duopoly of Labour and the Conservatives cannot be maintained indefinitely unless they find new ways to engage with voters. If that is bad news for both main parties, it also means that the British electorate has never been more empowered. 

This article first appeared in the 06 November 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Running out of Time

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.