logo
Is the centre right doomed?

Is the centre right doomed?

New Statesman​4 hours ago

Photo byOne should not get too excited about individual opinion polls. If a poll result is surprising or otherwise remarkable, it is probably wrong. Best to wait for other samples to confirm it before drawing any conclusions.
For this reason – plus the fact that other things in the world were happening over the weekend – Saturday's Ipsos poll, showing Reform on 34 per cent and the Conservatives on just 15 per cent, has created less excitement than it might. Caution here is sensible – it might turn out to be an outlier – but it does highlight the fact that even the less surprising, less remarkable polls – in which the Tories poll in the high teens and Reform polls in the high 20s – not to mention May's dismal local election results, still reveal a situation that is extraordinary. The Conservative Party appears to have been relegated from the top tier of British politics.
It is of no comfort to the Tories that this decline is not an isolated example for the mainstream centre right. As Sam Freedman recently pointed out, only two of the G20 countries are currently led by centre-right parties (US Republicans no longer count as mainstream centre right). Whereas once the centre right was the dominant political force in many countries, it is now in structural decline and, in some cases, close to extinction.
This theme is looked at in some detail in a report published last week by Bright Blue. It begins by trying to define and identify the centre right, and argues that, first, a centre-right party needs to be a centrist party, in that – unlike populist parties – it recognises the value of political institutions and seeks to develop policies based on evidence. Second, to distinguish the centre right from the centre left, a centre-right party will have at least two out of three attributes: a caution about change; what they describe as 'valuing the culture of the people local to it' (or 'non-cosmopolitanism'); and a belief in economic liberalism.
Looking specifically at the UK, Germany, France, Poland and the Republic of Ireland, the paper argues that the nature of the centre-right varies depending upon that nation's history and culture. Nor is the way in which the centre right is represented in the party political system always the same. Nonetheless, there are sufficient similarities for comparisons to be worthwhile.
In each case, with the exception of Ireland, the centre right has been diminished by the rise of the populist right – competing for an element of the centre right's traditional support. The response of the centre right has been either to try to delegitimise the populists (which has aggravated the anti-establishment feeling held by some voters), or imitate it (which alienates other parts of their electoral coalition and is often inconsistent with traditional beliefs).
The paper also argues that centre-right parties have often been unable to differentiate themselves from parties of the centre left on economic policy. This was a big problem for the centre right in the 1990s when the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a generation of moderate centre-left leaders meant that the centre right had nowhere to go. In recent years, however, political convergence has been driven more by the centre right moving leftwards on economic policy than the centre left moving rightwards. Economic statism, driven by the need to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and a desire to appeal to both older and more economically left-wing populist voters, saw centre-right governments deliver higher levels of public spending which, in a period of low economic growth, inevitably resulted in higher taxes.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
The temptation in these circumstances is to try to change the subject and focus on cultural issues, such as opposing wokeness and multiculturalism. But, as the report dryly notes, for those most concerned about these issues, 'the centre right is not the obvious outlet for these sentiments'.
Does this leave the centre right doomed? The UK polling certainly suggests that it might be. But this may not so much reveal that the centre-right electorate no longer exists, rather that the Conservative Party is currently incapable of articulating a persuasive centre-right case. Tarnished by its recent history in office, it struggles to argue that it can deliver competent government and too often presents to the public an agenda that is indistinguishable from right-wing populism.
In France, the party of the centre right, the Republicans, has become something of an irrelevance, even though a poll in 2021 showed that 31 per cent of French people identified as centre right, compared to just 19 per cent as centre left, and 17 per cent as centrist. The risk for the Tories is that something similar might happen here.
What is needed, in contrast, is a confident assertion of centre-right values that distinguishes them from both the centre left and the populist right. Of course, there is plenty of criticism of the Labour government from the Tory frontbench, but it frequently lacks nuance or self-awareness. In response to the rise of the populist right, however, the approach is too often to give the impression that Conservatives think that Reform is right, but that people should not vote for them. That has started to change on the economy as Nigel Farage moves his party to the left economically, but a clear and forthright critique of right-wing populism is lacking.
There is little prospect of that happening. Within the Tory party, the fear is that criticism of the populists would only increase divisions on the right. Reform voters, it is argued, are like Conservative voters, only more so. This view is preventing the Tories from occupying unashamedly the territory that is neither centre left nor populist. Until it does so, the centre right will remain a diminished force in the UK.
[See more: Labour is heading for war over welfare cuts]
Related

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Former Scots Tory MP who backs Donald Trump appeared in Reform UK video
Former Scots Tory MP who backs Donald Trump appeared in Reform UK video

Daily Record

time35 minutes ago

  • Daily Record

Former Scots Tory MP who backs Donald Trump appeared in Reform UK video

EXCLUSIVE: Ross Thomson can be seen in Reform social media contact plugging a visit by chair David Bull. A former Scots Tory MP who backs Donald Trump has appeared in Reform UK's latest Scottish video. Ross Thomson can be seen chatting to Reform chair David Bull in the promo less than a year after backing Russell Findlay for the Conservative leadership in Scotland. ‌ A Tory source said he is no longer a member of their party. ‌ Thomson had been a Tory MSP and MP but he did not seek re-election in the Aberdeen South seat in 2019. He had been accused of sexual harassment in a House of Commons bar, but he was cleared. A cameo in a Reform UK video of Bull's trip to Perth at the weekend has now fuelled speculation he could be the latest Tory to jump ship to Nigel Farage 's right wing party. In the video, Bull said he was in Scotland because Reform is doing 'so well' north of the border, before cutting to an image of him speaking to Thomson. In last year's Scottish Tory leadership contest, Thomson vocally backed Findlay. ‌ He wrote on X: "After the hustings in Aberdeen, it's clear that @RussellFindlay1 is the best candidate to lead the @ScotTories. He'll champion our vital oil & gas sector and offer a real, common sense, conservative alternative to the socialist parties at Holyrood. He's also a really nice guy!' Findlay responded with a grateful message that included a gold star. Thomson is fervently pro-Trump and dined with the President at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. ‌ It was reported in April that he had secured a new job with one of Trump 's golf resorts. In 2018, he ran into controversy after reportedly posting himself sitting on the throne of Saddam Hussein. He was accused of 'trivialising" the dictator's bloody reign after writing: "Another terrific day in Iraq. Saddam 's throne at the British embassy."

Farage and Badenoch's Iran headache
Farage and Badenoch's Iran headache

New Statesman​

timean hour ago

  • New Statesman​

Farage and Badenoch's Iran headache

Photo byForeign policy crises present a dilemma for opposition parties. At moments when national security is at stake, there is an opportunity to put aside party differences and back the government, showing a united front to the world and indicating a level of mature statesmanship. Alternatively, there is also an opportunity to point-score, striking while the government is distracted. What they choose depends hugely on the crisis in question, and how the party's response might be perceived. Ed Miliband's pivotal decision not to back David Cameron on UK military action in Syria in 2013 was primarily driven by fierce opposition to further involvement in the Middle East within a Labour Party still scarred from the Iraq War – but it's hard to imagine the calculation that losing a parliamentary vote of this nature would damage the Prime Minister's authority didn't feature at all. When it came to Britain's response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Keir Starmer did not hesitate in backing Boris Johnson in full. Whatever other criticisms Starmer threw at Johnson (and, later, Rishi Sunak), Britain's position on Ukraine was not one of them. Perhaps he knew that a different Labour leader might have taken a different tack, and sought to distance his party as far as possible from that perception. What then to make of the reactions from the Conservatives – and, indeed, from Reform – to the government's handling of the current geopolitical turmoil? Both Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have, to different degrees, chosen to attack Labour's response to the Israeli and American action in Iran. Badenoch in particular has thrown herself into the discourse. First, before the missiles from Donald Trump's heralded B-2 bombers had hit the Iranian nuclear sites, she published an op-ed on Saturday night not only backing Israel's military assaults whole-heartedly, arguing 'Iran is a direct threat to Britain', but criticising the UK government for being less enthusiastic about it. Attacking what she called a 'weak and morally deficient Labour government', she wrote that 'Keir Starmer and David Lammy vacillate and equivocate, and Lord Hermer imposes his own interpretation of international law'. She continued: 'We are no longer trusted and are viewed as unreliable. Lammy's confused antics diminish us on the global stage.' Badenoch could not have known about Operation Midnight Hammer at the time of writing. She could not have known that the US had already chosen to strike Iran and to bypass Britain entirely in doing so, launching its missiles not from the shared UK-US Diego Garcia airbase on the Chagos Islands, but from Missouri, giving Downing Street only a cursory heads-up. But it's a theme she returned to on Monday, telling veteran Conservative historian Charles Moore at an event at Policy Exchange that she suspected the UK was being 'cut out' of foreign intelligence briefings because our allies do not trust the Labour government. She offered no evidence for her claim, but had previously argued the UK had been 'left out of the planning of the US strikes on Iran', implying the lack of warning was down to Britain's lukewarm position. Nigel Farage struck a similar tone at his own event on Monday, suggesting Britain has alienated itself from the White House. 'I'm not sure America is going to need our help with Iran. I think we've hindered them already,' he argued, speculating that Diego Garcia would have made more sense to launch an attack had the UK been onboard. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe These positions make a degree of sense, simply because the government's response to Operation Midnight Hammer is so garbled. As George wrote yesterday, the Prime Minister finds himself stranded, unable to either support or condemn US action – and, as Megan Kenyon has pointed out, he is paralysed by the left of his party and risks splitting his entire political movement. In the Commons on Monday night, David Lammy was in a similar bind, answering justifiable questions from MPs about the UK's position and whether the strikes were legal with the stonewalling statement: 'We were not involved. This is not our legal context.' The vibe from Starmer and his team seems to be that they hope the whole geopolitical quagmire will simply de-escalate and go away. Hardly a vote of confidence for British leadership. But Badenoch and Farage face their own pitfalls. For a start, the British people have little appetite for UK engagement in the Middle East (Ben Walker has analysed the public's scepticism for aiding Israel in its fight against Iran), and have no love for Trump either. Support among Brits for the US president took a sharp fall this year after his jaw-dropping meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky. It nose-dived even among Reform voters – by far the group most supportive of Trump in general. There is also polling evidence suggesting Nigel Farage's favourability ratings fell due to the unpopularity of his closeness with Trump. (The New Statesman's Freddie Hayward asked the Reform leader yesterday if his stance on UK support for Operation Midnight Hammer had anything to do with his friendship with Trump. Farage did not look amused.) Coming down fiercely on the side of Trump, seemingly in opposition to the UK government, makes both the Tory and Reform leaders hostages to fortune if the ceasefire agreed last night ends up disintegrating and the situation escalates further. Who knows what the US president might do next? More broadly, there are dangers to playing politics on security matters – even if the government position is a mess. It risks making both the Conservatives and Reform look unpatriotic, too caught up in their own games of point-scoring at a time of crisis for grown-up politics in the national interest. Finally, there's the blunt reality that it seems to matter not one jot whether the UK supports the US or not – Trump is not looking to Britain for guidance, advice or permission. All the same, it's hard to imagine how telling the world our government is weak, unreliable and not to be trusted helps the UK's standing on the global stage – or the reputation of the opposition leader. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Can the ceasefire hold?] Related

Aimee Lou Wood sent 'vile threats of violence' after sharing anti-war speech
Aimee Lou Wood sent 'vile threats of violence' after sharing anti-war speech

Daily Mirror

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Aimee Lou Wood sent 'vile threats of violence' after sharing anti-war speech

The White Lotus star Aimee Lou Woods reveals she was on the receiving end of violent death threats after posting a famous anti-war speech by British politician Tony Benn British actress Aimee Lou Wood has claimed she was on the receiving end of violent threats after posting an anti-war speech to her Instagram account. In the wake of the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites on June 15, The White Lotus star came to Instagram to share a clip of British politician Tony Benn's anti-war speech. In 1998, the former member of the Labour party appealed to MPs as they debated whether the UK should carry out a bombing raid on Iraq in conjunction with the US. ‌ He emphasised how innocents, including children, are the main casualties of war. It includes the famous and harrowing line: 'Don't Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die?' ‌ However, Aimee later posted an Instagram story claiming that she had received threatening messages on the back of her post. Over a selfie, the 31-year-old wrote: "Love getting vile threats of violence and death just for saying I'm against war and innocent people dying... The world is crazy.' Reacting to the post on Reddit, fans were quick to share their support and commend Aimee for making a statement. One wrote: 'F them, I'm so glad Aimee is speaking up.' 'Apparently not wanting another war and innocent people dying is not in fashion this year,' a second joked. Another simply added: 'She's right, the world is stupid.' For more stories like this visit The Gulp or subscribe to our weekly newsletter for a curated roundup of top stories, interviews, and lifestyle picks from The Mirror's Audience U35 team delivered straight to your inbox. ‌ Others also expressed dismay and concern over the political landscape – as well as what it might mean for the future. One commenter said: 'Shows how small minded the world is.' They added: 'How people can be accepting of all the terrible fucking shit our 'world leaders' do. I am petrified of what life my children are going to have.' Another pointed out that Aimee has been vocal in her support of other causes, notably Palestine: 'Aimee has been pretty vocal about her support for Palestine since October… attacks. I admired her back in the day for her postings when NO one was doing anything.' ‌ On the back of the October 7 attacks, the actress also took to Instagram, frequently reposting fundraisers and appeals for the Gaza humanitarian crisis and statistics on the rise in Islamophobic hate crimes in London. She told The Cut that she had a personal tie to the cause, as her grandfather had been 'a soldier in Palestine'. However, her outspoken support led to intense backlash online. As reported by The Cut, she was warned by police that the threats she was facing could have real consequences and that she should be cautious. Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store