Politics: theatre time

By Richard North - May 31, 2024

In casting a vote at the general election, we are – in theory at least – making a judgement on the record of the previous administration and taking a punt on which of the rival parties looks best suited to form a new administration.

That would only work in practice, of course, if during the campaign period, there was a forensic analysis of the parties, of their recent records, the strength of their plans and the competence (and characters) of the leading politicians.

Inevitably, the reality is rather different. Such “forensic analysis” as is undertaken is largely in the hands of the media, which is neither equipped nor able to carry out its allocated role. And then, even if it were to do so, most voters would be neither particularly interested in the detail nor capable of assessing it – if, indeed, that was even possible without the benefit of the historian’s perspective.

The general election campaign, therefore, ends up largely as theatre, entertainment mainly for the media classes and generally ignored by the bulk of the population, where most individuals are probably motivated more by sentiment and prejudice than the fruits of rational analysis.

At least, though, one might expect the media – and their politician actors – to go through the motions of making cases for this or that party, laying out what might be taken for as layers of coherent policy on which we are expected to judge, but there are days – and sometimes longer periods – when even the pretence is abandoned and the campaign degenerates into disjointed bickering, relegating policy arguments to the status of distant “noises off”.

Yesterday was one of those days, when ostensibly both main parties were talking about their tax plans, but the focus was elsewhere. On the Labour side, the story of the day was what appeared to be Starmer’s purge of his left wing, while Sunak had to make do with the defection of one of his former MPs.

Meanwhile, on this day of days, the Trump trial – which has come to a head in New York with the conviction of the ex-president – has probably absorbed most of the political bandwidth and has captured the overnight headlines.

For those who have managed to stay the course in the UK, the Starmer drama has perhaps been a little too tedious for the general hackery, leaving Tom Peck in The Times to remark of the opposition leader’s journey to Wales – with one planned for Scotland today – that, “Not since Forrest Gump’s silent runs across America has anyone travelled so far to say so little”.

Peck’s main interest was Reform, with the narrative firmly in entertainment territory, leading him to denounce the policy ideas of the Tice and Farage roadshow delivered to “a two-thirds empty room under London Bridge” as “barking”. The pair were, he wrote, were “trying to eat the Tories alive”, and were “loving every second”.

That’s actually a fairly accurate “take” of the so-called insurgent party, which has given up any attempt at offering serious policy. Rather, Farage in particular, is effectively trolling the media – great fun while it lasts but, as Pete points out strategically useless, making no serious contribution to the debate.

If Reform had decided to be a serious party, Farage would be in rather deep trouble by now, having told The Sun that he was open to a deal with Sunak to save the Tories from oblivion – telling the prime minister: “Give me something back… We might have a conversation”.

Farage was quoted as saying that he had done the [Conservative] party some “huge favours” over the years, asking of Sunak: “What are they going to do back for me?”.

Talking to The Sun’s political editor, Harry Cole, he claimed that the Tories had already tried to lure him away, hinting they had even offered him a peerage, an offer which he dismissed as “rubbish”, but said he and the Tories “might have a conversation”. He had, after all, “got rid of Mrs May with the Brexit Party” and “stood aside for Boris to help him win a massive majority”.

The fact that Farage stood down many of his candidates in the 2019 election – a unilateral action, imposed without prior consultation – still rankles with many (now former) supporters, and required from Tice a “guarantee” last December that he would not repeat the exercise this time round.

Farage was, in any case, wasting his time on this occasion, eliciting from Sunak a flat rejection of his advances, ruling out a deal when asked, with a monosyllabic “yes”.

The prospect of another Farage sell-out, however, was enough to put Tice back on the spot, rushing to assure candidates – actual and potential, most of whom are having to fund their own local campaigns – that there was no substance in Farage’s suggestion, which the golden boy himself hastened to dismiss as “banter”.

Whether this will have any lasting effect on Reform’s bid to field a slate of 630 candidates only time will tell, but there is bound to be a little nervousness, especially as polling results are somewhat mixed.

A BMG poll for instance shows support for Reform in April, which stood at 14 percent, peeled back to nine percent in this month’s poll.

Although the YouGov poll is holding firm, with Reform standing at 15 percent, on the basis of a JL Partners poll, James Johnson for the Telegraph reports that its support has “imploded”.

The party, he writes, is on the decline with people over the age of 35, where it gets most of its support. It has seen a statistically significant drop amongst women, garnering the backing of less than one in ten of the female vote, and for the first time in JLP’s election tracking, Labour is taking more votes amongst 2019 Tories than is Reform.

This now presents us with an interesting situation. The Times is running a piece explaining why Labour’s poll lead is probably being overstated, while there are some indications that Sunak’s pitch is going down well with voters, which could eventually reflect in improved polling.

If the downwards trend in Reform’s standing is real, the Tory position could be far less glum than most polls suggest, while Starmer’s travails with his left-wing might have a further electoral impact which favours the Tories.

One example is the strange case of pro-Palestinian Faiza Shaheen, ditched by her party as candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green, after liking a series of Tweets which she claims Labour said would frustrate its campaign.

This Muslim lady has already come across our radar, where George Galloway’s Workers Party had placed Yousaff Khan to compete against her, in a seat held by Iain Duncan Smith.

Even then, I was positing that, with a Green candidate in place as well, Labour could find itself struggling to dent Duncan Smith’s slender majority, despite a Brexit Party candidate ready to compete for his votes.

Now, with the Brexit Party apparently weakened, and Labour having appointed Shama Tatler as its new candidate – a Brent councillor with no local history -potentially slashing the Labour vote as disgusted Muslims go elsewhere, Duncan Smith’s chances of retaining his seat for the Tories – against the odds – have just soared.

This little episode more than adequately illustrates the four-way dynamic that will be played out in many seats, the net effect being to erode the Labour vote and protect Tory candidates in some marginal seats, increasing the chances of a hung parliament.

Add to this the confusion about Diane Abbott, the “cull” of Lloyd Russell-Moyle, and Starmer is increasingly on the back foot, looking less like a prime minister in waiting with each passing day.

In the midst of all this, Farage happily chirps that, “’If people start to understand what Reform UK is all about… then we might just surprise everybody in the course of the next five weeks”.

Surprise there may be, Jim, but not as we know it.