Tiggers, Melts and Radical Centrists

James Chapman of The Independent Group (you know “politics is broken, lets fix it”) has just issued its first answer to the British constitutional crisis and its predictably shallow and useless. It’s a mix of populist ideas and pure nonsense, like someone who has just suddenly woken up to their being a problem and has rattled off a series of ideas on a post-it note on the way to the morning meeting:

Despite the profile given to them by the media the Tiggers are probably better ignored, after the frenzy of their launch “they went up like a rocket and came down like a stick”, but Chapman’s tweeted mini-manifesto can be read like an exemplar of a lost generation of radical centrists.

Chapman is the former political editor of the Daily Mail and used to be Osborne’s right hand man at HM Treasury. But his political voice sounds exactly the same as Chris Deerin or Kenny Farquharson or a host of other commentators. These are people whose job it is to keep-up with and articulate the shifting sands of political reality.

In Unherd, Deerin outlined the position best:

“For those of us who self-identify as centrists – call us Blairites, moderates, melts, whatever – these are barren times. There is nowhere to go. Most of us are anti-Brexit on the basis that it’s a bloody stupid idea and watch the self-serving pivots and shimmies of Davis/Johnson/Fox etc. with something close to contempt. We cannot vote for this incarnation of the Tory party, even if we found a decent number of policies to praise over the course of the Cameron administration. Labour are still worse: led by a stomach-turning ragbag of Trots and chancers who have mounted a hostile takeover of their party and its machinery and watched gleefully as the internal opposition tossed its weapons away and hit the deck in abject surrender.”

“We are living through the most radical transformation of society and of our way of life since the industrial revolution. The existing parties were set up in and for a different world – Labour, especially, even down to its name, is a strange anachronism. They are Heath-Robinson contraptions, held together by sticky tape and moist-eyed emotion, that seem constitutionally unable to cope with the pace of change, to offer sensible, convincing policies that can ease us through the necessary adjustments. They are hamstrung by history, dogma and tradition. They are holding Britain back.”

“British politics and our public space would benefit from a party formed specifically to deal with the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Free from the constrictions imposed by history, legacy and special interest loyalties, it could aggressively get to grips with intergenerational unfairness, the rise of AI and its impact on lifestyle and the workplace, devise a sustainable model for funding public services, develop a grown-up conversation about immigration, and the rest. It could do so honestly and in a language that explodes the carefully calculated jargon that so envelops and strangles our debate.”

Deerin’s is the worst/best of the genre. But others return to the fray with predictable regularity.

Kenny Farquharson returns to Federalism like a metronome. Last month he became over-excited at the work of Baroness Pauline Bryan of Partick, a constitutional reform adviser appointed by Jeremy Corbyn, who launched a paper which sets out her plans for reform at the Labour conference in Dundee.

It proposed a new Chamber of the Nations and Regions which should be elected and be fully accountable. It also proposed the “future relationship between Holyrood and Westminster should be based on partnership and not hierarchy”.

Apart from this all being fringe froth it didn’t seem to trouble anyone the deep irony of an ermine-clad “socialist” announcing again) how Labour would reform the House of Lords or any cursory glance at Labours lack of commitment to strengthening devolved powers.

For many of these politicians and lobbyists/columnists

Talking endlessly about Federalism seems to be a displacement activity for engaging with the reality of Broken Britain.

As Deerin writes: “A new, modern party of the centre would have its work cut out, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It would give many of us a cause to champion over the long term. It could be something to be proud of – a muscular, liberal centrism that makes its case with all the swagger of its rivals, and that is built – and fit – for the 21st century.”

 

For all the talk of endless Blair-style innovation and modernity, this strand of forgotten political scribes has two or three ideas on shuffle: New Party, Federalism and Ruth Davidson (or similar empty saviour). It is political analysis without political analysis, policy without power, vision without memory.

It’s like they are trying to put together the comforting certainties of their childhood; when politicians and the media were given automatic respect; briefings and events gave them unique access; and stability and paternalism were the mark of a sterile but confident Britain; Scotland was a marginal concern for Munro-bagging and Hogmanay and all was well.

It feels like a slightly lazy psychological defense from either coming to terms with the constitutional divide – or having to defend the status quo which these people fought for in 2014. It also feels like a completely inadequate response to the depth of political and social crisis that’s been laid bare in 2019.

Comments (7)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. MBC says:

    As long as we have a first past the post system of politics none of it will get anywhere. A multiplicity of parties could dangerously split the vote allowing extreme right wing parties to form the government by default. That’s my big fear, greater than the intellectual vacuity of so-called centrist parties.

    1. Charles L. Gallagher says:

      Yes MBC, it could also result in an extreme ‘left wing’ coalition. Does that not scare you as well?

      1. MBC says:

        No, not really. The damage they would do would be far less. Be serious. The right controls this country. Attlee’s nationalisations were reversed within 35 years.

        1. MBC says:

          Not that Attlee’s nationalisations were ‘damage’ but Thatcher’s selling off everything certainly was.

  2. SleepingDog says:

    I would suppose if you wanted to rid the UK political system of anachronism and hierarchy, there are more obvious targets to choose from.

  3. Graeme Purves says:

    Fag-packet Federalism seems to be the genre of the season.

    1. Charles L. Gallagher says:

      Federalism will never work unless and until England realises that one block of 50 million plus can’t form ONE of the new Federal States. England will need to be DIVIDED into REGIONS which would form the new Federal States of England. But I can’t see Wastemonster accepting this now for they haven’t in the past.

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia