There’s a febrile atmosphere in British politics, fuelled by the annual party conferences. Party leaders have the opportunity at these conferences to energise supporters and members. Supporters and members also have a chance to air grievances in public. Right now the grievances are louder than the energising. When the Labour party conference closes in Liverpool on Wednesday the British political caravan heads to Manchester for the Conservatives.
Both Britain’s traditional parties of government have little in common except one massive, shared problem: disappointment. Voters and party members as well as MPs and other politicians understand both Labour and the Conservatives are way behind in the opinion polls. Both are desperately trying to figure out how to counter the sudden rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. And both are trying to paper over significant internal divisions. Party members are asking serious questions about the competence, charisma or otherwise of their leaders.
While the specific threat from Reform is new, the idea that political leaders face criticism from within their own ranks is as old as modern democratic politics. The current Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer will perhaps benefit from remembering that their many predecessors also faced grumbling, dissent and threatened rebellions and responded vigorously.
In May 1969, Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, challenged the backbiters in his own party by turning on the potential rebels: “Let me say, for the benefit of those who have allowed themselves to be carried away by the gossip of the past few days, I know what is going on. I am going on. Your government is going on”. More than a decade later, in 1980, another prime minister in difficulty, the Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, in her first year in office faced down potential plotters with an equally blunt warning: “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the “U-turn”, I have only one thing to say: “You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!”
Mrs Thatcher did not U-turn. She remained in power until 1990. Her successor as prime minister John Major, facing even greater internal difficulties, told Conservative rebels that he too would not go quietly. The rebels should “put up or shut up”. They challenged him but he won through and stayed as prime minister for another two years.
And so Mr Starmer is merely the latest prime minister with a potential rebellion on his hands. The opinion polls are depressing. Labour, like the Conservatives, trail roughly 10 per cent behind Reform in the polls. Media scrutiny of Mr Starmer has been critical although some of the stories seem bizarre. Mr Starmer was challenged about the tax arrangements for a field that he bought years ago so that his sick mother could be taken in her wheelchair to where she kept four pet donkeys.
Mr Starmer explained that as a well-paid lawyer in the 1990s he was able to spend £20,000 to make his mother happy. In her declining years “she was able to see the donkeys”. He insisted there were no financial irregularities involving inheritance tax, but the story will undoubtedly rumble on.
I happen to be watching all this at an enormous distance from the party conferences. I’m at a book festival in Scotland discussing with audiences my latest book on declining standards and lying in public life and why 40 per cent of potential British voters don’t vote. Some audience members suggested media scrutiny of politicians is fine but it should be applied more enthusiastically to Reform, especially since their leader Mr Farage could eventually be prime minister.
Increasing scrutiny seems likely especially since Reform’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, is currently awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery relating to pro-Russia statements he made as a Member of the European Parliament. Since Reform constantly pretends to be super patriotic, Mr Gill taking money to praise Russia is hugely problematic.
Dominic Murphy, head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan Police, said the Nathan Gill case “goes to the heart of our democratic values”. More robust scrutiny of Reform therefore seems inevitable. Those who seek and achieve power or come close to doing so will always have their conduct examined especially if it involves taking cash from the Kremlin.
Mr Farage, his closest allies and donors can therefore expect more questions about party and personal finances, especially if there is cash from foreign donors. Increased interest from journalists and others is irritating and intrusive, yet inevitable given Reform’s apparent success. Reform has thousands of enthusiastic members, but only five MPs. Beyond Mr Farage himself, Reform has a charisma vacuum.
As testament to his own success, Mr Farage as a potential prime minister will therefore now face more scrutiny than ever before. The party conferences will soon give way to a very testing autumn, politically, diplomatically and economically. That means we may soon learn how much the British public really cares about tax liabilities on donkey fields, Mr Farage’s track record, Russian money in British politics – and above all the sluggish British economy and conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
