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

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era