The Disruptor Trap

As the May Local Elections approach, things look bleak for the political centre. Polling suggests Labour could lose close to 2,000 local councillors, while the Conservatives are predicted to lose around 1,000. The big winners will likely be Reform, who could gain over 2,000 councillors - with the Greens also expected to perform well, potentially gaining close to 500.

There is, of course, good reason to be fed up with Keir Starmer and his government, particularly in the light of fresh revelations about the vetting procedure for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the ambassador to the United States. Almost two years into the first Labour government for 14 years, Starmer has limped from scandal to scandal and has yet to create a sense that the country is moving in the right direction, despite signs the economy was starting to trend upwards before the Iran War began.

But we must beware the “disruptors”. Those who present themselves as providing easy solutions to all the country’s ills. The disruptors take aim at institutions and alliances, claiming the electorate would be better off if the country withdrew from these and turned its gaze inward. They ignore the very real effects of global events such as wars and pandemics, instead creating scapegoats to blame for the country’s socioeconomic woes and claiming they can improve things almost instantly.

On the right, Nigel Farage has always met this description, railing against Brussels from inside the European Parliament to achieve his career-long goal of getting the UK out of the EU. Despite his insistence that the UK was being held back by European diplomats and would thrive on its own, since Brexit the overwhelming effect on the economy has been negative. 

Farage has since turned his attention to institutions such as the ECHR and the BBC, looking to pull the UK out of the former and end the licence fee to severely damage the latter. For the disruptors, there must always be an enemy of the moment to direct voters’ dissatisfaction at. Presently, for the right, the ECHR is at fault for high immigration and the BBC represents ‘woke’ culture. Attacking these institutions allows Farage and co. to skirt around offering tangible solutions to improve citizens’ lives, instead blaming immigrants, the media and bureaucrats.

On the left, the Greens have emerged as a serious contender across the country, largely thanks to their charismatic, self-described “eco-populist” leader, Zack Polanski. Polanski’s ire is similarly focused at the establishment, but rather than taking aim at the EU or ECHR, he argues the traditional big parties protect the interests of a wealthy elite, increasing inequality and leaving no money for investment in improving voters’ lives.

It is overly reductionist to equate Polanski and the Greens to Farage and Reform purely on the back of each party being further to the left/right than their traditional counterparts (Labour and the Conservatives), and each leader embodying a brand of populism. The Greens have been an established political party for 36 years, as opposed to Reform’s seven years. The Greens have proven they can run local councils and often put forward candidates with intimate knowledge of the local area. Whereas MPs and councillors put forward by Reform have often been parachuted in from completely different areas with little credible experience, leading to poor performance.

There’s something to be said for placing more focus on individual constituency MPs and local councillors rather than the wider political party and their leaders. It is these local politicians who are ultimately on the ground in remote parts of the country, gaining an understanding of voters in specific areas. The concerns of those in a Southern coastal village might differ from those in a Midlands market town or a Northern former industrial stronghold.

However, when it is party policy to dismantle Trident and the leader has said he would pull the UK out of NATO at a time when Vladimir Putin has invaded Europe and threatens to go further, alarm bells must ring. Despite Donald Trump’s continued admonishment of the military alliance, NATO is more vital than ever as a deterrent against further Russian aggression. And ironically, Polanski’s reasoning for leaving NATO - that it overly relies on U.S. involvement - is exactly the reason for continuing the Trident program. Although also relying on U.S. involvement, a UK without a nuclear deterrent would be even more reliant on the U.S. for its defence.

Yes, in an ideal world, the need for a nuclear deterrent would not exist. But, in the real world, where realpolitik rules, it is unfortunately a continued necessity. Ukraine provides ample evidence of this, having agreed to give up its nuclear weapons under the 1994 Budapest memorandum. Would Putin have taken the risk of invading if Ukraine still possessed nukes?

And populism, whichever side of the political spectrum it originates on, has been shown to harm democratic institutions substantially more than non-populists. A study by Kyle and Mounck (2018) showed that 23% of democratically-elected populists cause democratic backsliding compared to 6% of non-populists. It found that over 50 percent of populist leaders amend or rewrite their countries’ constitutions, with many of these changes extending term limits or weakening checks on executive power.

This should send alarm bells ringing about the growing prospect of a Farage-led Reform government - something explored in Peter Chappell's book, What if Reform Wins - or, although far less likely, a Polanski-led Greens government. Both Farage and Polanski openly embrace their populist personas, while pushing unfunded economic policies that promise big spending increases at a time when UK government debt sits at around 95% of GDP.

So does this mean we should vote for the status quo, despite what many see as the relatively poor performance of the Labour government so far? Well, yes. Politics does not have simple solutions. There is no perfect party that has all the answers to society’s problems and the tools to fix them. We are left with a choice between imperfect parties that all have their own detractions - perhaps having to choose the least bad option, rather than the best.

This is likely a depressing thought. Arguing that voters should back a party based on it being the ‘least bad’ option appears defeatist about the impact politics can have on improving society. But this is where the recent surge in support for the Greens and Reform can, perhaps, have some benefit. As seen in countries which employ a proportional representation system, the less traditional parties have a key role in the formation of a government, often forming part of a majority with the traditional parties. This forces the traditional parties to acknowledge aspects of the disruptors’ agendas, making some compromises while holding firm against the more extreme and dangerous elements.

Historically, the UK’s first-past-the-post system has rendered the likes of the Greens fairly insignificant. But, the seismic political shift set in motion by social media and a more fluid electorate means, for the first time, the disruptors’ threaten to secure a large portion of seats.

It is therefore the responsibility of Labour and the Tories to regain the trust of voters while avoiding the racist scapegoating of Reform, the defence madness of the Greens, and the economic illiteracy of both. To do this, they must address the left behind areas of the UK, rather than just talking about it, investing in these communities to create jobs, homes and a sense of opportunities. They must cultivate an effective media image, with a greater understanding of the need for clear, engaging communication to take on the media-savvy Farage and Polanski, while avoiding their populist tendencies. They must be honest with the electorate, but also positive about the UK, recognising that voters often respond to feelings over facts.

There are no quick fixes when the world has been swallowed up by the geopolitical crises of wars and energy shocks. To tackle these problems, countries require detailed, long-term strategising conducted by serious politicians. The disruptors would tear down the system in the aim of mythical easy solutions. Such solutions do not exist and their seductive whispers must be resisted.

Image: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Licence.

No image changes made.