Ideological Purity

Of late I've been hearing people say; "I'm Labour, but there's no way I could vote for Starmer." Also; "I'm a Tory, but I couldn't vote for anyone associated with Johnson." Admittedly it's more Labour voters, as Conservatives seem generally willing to vote for anything Johnson proposes - the more unethical or unlawful the better, but there are a few with a moral compass.

The best description I've heard of political parties is this; "Parties are like buses; you won't get one that takes you to the doorstep of where you want to be. You vote for the one that gets you closest to where you want to be." That may not be Labour and it may not be Tory, but somewhere a bit more toward the centre on the continuum. It certainly isn't switching to your party's polar opposite. It's why I've hovered between LibDem and Labour over the last 25 years, after a lifetime of voting how my parents voted - for what I mistakenly saw as my tribe. 

Political parties themselves are coalitions, not bastions of ideological purity; however, the ERG and Momentum seek this very purity with a zeal. The ERG and Momentum are at opposite ends of a U shaped continuum (the horseshoe theory) - both equally intolerant of anything but themselves and vociferously anti-elite, although (curiously) they differ as to who those elites are - but it's never themselves, despite them being the elite of ideological purity. It's a very simplified assessment of the left-right divide, but on the one end is communism; at the other lies fascism, with the Y scale representing the degree of intolerance.

However, in a two party system, a vote for a centrist party that stands no chance of gaining power is a vote for your polar opponent on that bus journey, unless it's a tactical vote in a constituency where one of the minor parties does actually stand a chance of ousting the incumbent; however, those instances are few. There again, how is a fledgling party ever to gain traction if we're perpetually stuck in a 2 party system? It's an argument for PR.

As for saying you're Labour or Tory, but won't vote for your party - then who will you vote for in a way that makes any sense and isn't self-defeating? There again, 52% voted to kick themselves in the teeth over Brexit and most of those still believe it was a good idea, despite observed reality. A prime example of how emotions can be more important than facts in politics and the cause of the rise in populism. The antidote to populism lies with the media and them critically examining populist claims. Unfortunately, much of the media either supports populism, or is supine in its acceptance of it.

One of the reasons some Labour voters won't vote for Starmer is because he hasn't come out with full-throated support for ditching Brexit. The poll of polls for July shows the number haven't change dramatically, but they have reversed - 52% Remain and 48% Leave. The problem is that the 48% is split across party lines. It's simply too early and would give Momentum, which hates elites (aka the EU, it its worldview), the muscle to work with in destroying Labour from within in order to bring Corbyn back, as he is their totem of ideological purity and, as a consequence of that purity, unelectable.

Similarly, Starmer's refusal to condone the rail strikes is alienating some of Starmer's Labour critics, but he's allegedly more focused on conflict resolution and understands that joining the picket lines will achieve nothing in those terms. In fact, joining them will likely further entrench the government's stance, dragging out the strikes for longer than necessary and enabling Johnson, or his replacement, to say they are the fault of Labour - an open and obvious trap. As with most strikes, the longer they go on, the less the public support them, and that's what Starmer wants to avoid. He's not into performance politics, as it achieves nothing in terms of delivery, and the Conservatives' failure in delivery is his target - and their weakness, as it is for all populists.

The two contenders for Johnson's throne are currently engaged in this populism, announcing unworkable or illogical policies that chime with emotion, but lack any detail for implementation. Pure Trumpism, or Cakeism, in the Johnsonian lexicon. Sunak's proposal to bring vilification of UK values under anti-terrorism legislation is a prime example - he doesn't define these values, as to do so would highlight his hypocrisy, as the Conservatives have ridden roughshod over even their own seven principles of Conservatism, many of which are at odds with Labour's values. The talk of shared values is meaningless without definition and would, by necessity, be a compromise.