We are into the final week of the 2024 UK General Election (GE) campaign. Reform Party leader Nigel Farage wants it to be the ‘immigration election.’ It may be better characterised as the ‘toxic waste’ election. Like a barrel of toxic waste, Brexit slumbers under the surface, but continues to poison British politics even when it is not talked about. Indeed, one of the defining features of the 2024 GE campaign, that many people before me have commented on, is how little Brexit features in it. This is particularly striking if we think back to the 2019 election which was the ‘get-Brexit-done election.’ Now, Brexit hardly gets a mention – with the notable exception of the Scottish National Party (SNP) whose manifesto contains promise for an independent Scottland to rejoin the EU.
The conservatives have of course very good reasons for not wanting to talk about the real-world effects of Brexit that more and more voters are aware of and unhappy with. Labour too have very good reasons to stay clear of the topic as Chris Grey convincingly argued early on in the campaign. The LibDem manifesto does contain the pledge to rejoin the single market as does Plaid’s; and the Greens promise to rejoin the Customs Union and reintroduce free movement of people. Even Reform UK’s ‘contract with the people’ contains – according to Chris Grey’s most useful analysis of all manifestos – relatively little about Brexit. And what it does contain could be described as ‘Brexit, take 2’ – i.e. a series of promises of doing Brexit right by doing what others had promised before but realised was not feasible or desirable. Regardless, smaller parties’ Brexit commitments do not make any significant dent into the Brexit Omerta that the main parties manage to maintain.
Yet, like in so many other cases, here too Brexit is a symptom rather than the cause of the state of British politics. The Brexit Omerta simply reflects a more widespread inability of British politicians to be honest with the British electorate. Dishonesty may seem like a rational choice for politicians on the campaign trail. Dishonesty has led to seemingly unprecedented levels of apathy and cynicism amongst the British electorate – partly at least because – as a ‘More in Common’ focus group participant stated ‘trust has been shafted.’ For the optimist, record low levels of trust in politicians may not be as corrosive for democracy as many of us may think (because if you don’t trust politicians, you may be less likely to want to hand power to an autocrat?). But dishonesty and lack of trust will certainly make it more difficult for the next government to take the difficult measures it will necessarily have to take to start changing course on a vast range of policies that have pushed the country close to breaking point.
Dishonesty rules
Brexit may be the most obvious example of politicians not telling us the truth, but it is by far not the only one. Starmer cannot tell us why he supported Jeremy Corbyn back in 2019. Ed Davey cannot be open about whether or not the austerity policy his party supported during the Coalition government was a mistake. And Sunak cannot concede that the last 14 years of Tory government have made people’s lives worse in many respects. Even Farage – the man whose main electoral appeal is to speak his mind – holds back with his opinion when he does not dare telling us exactly why he thinks Sunak does not understand our culture.
The feeling that nothing in this country is working seems widespread. Even those who tell us we should not talk down our country, state – often in the same sentence – that ‘the country is dead.’ Yet, the two only realistic contenders for the position of PM run their respective campaigns on the claim that ‘our plan is working’ and ‘stability is change.’ So, we are made to believe that continuing down the path we have been on these past decades will somehow produce better outcomes under the next government.
So why can British politicians not tell us what they really think about the state of the country and the extent of changes that are needed?
Mediated dishonesty
One key reason for the rampant dishonesty is the UK’s media landscape and the question who owns our media.
The red-top newspapers and broadsheets like the Telegraph have long played a key role in keeping politicians in this country on the straight and narrow; never letting them stray far off a fairly right-leaning form of conservatism as the outer boundary of what is possible in terms of progressive reforms. The Daily Mail’s ‘Red Ed’ campaign is an extreme – but by no means unique – example of how putting forward policy ideas that the editors of right-wing newspapers and their owners do not like will be ruthlessly and often successfully punished. Playing to people’s fear of socialism – which itself is a product of the cold war – by reducing all progressive policies to the totalitarian regime of the USSR is a particularly successful strategy.
The fear of falling foul of what Rupert Murdoch finds acceptable policy choices constrains the policy space for progressive forces and explains why Labour often takes very timid positions in election campaigns. And when they do not, they will be punished by the media and – as a result – the electorate, as Corbyn experienced in December 2019, delivering Labour’s worst general election result since 1937.
Arguably, the restriction of what is ‘sayable’ in British politics, affects not just journalists working for right-wing editors and owners. A recent study has found evidence for a right-wing bias in the BBC’s high profile ‘Question Time’ programme, with right wing politicians being given more airtime than others. Given the harsh criticism from right-wing populists – not just in the UK, but in many countries with anti-state right-wing parties (something I have done research on with my POPBACK colleagues) – that public broadcasters are exposed to, these choices may be the result of journalistic (unconscious?) coping strategies to avoid claims bout ‘left-wing bias’ from powerful right-wing figures.
The right-wing print press may be losing influence, as people increasingly turn to online and social media for their news, but their online versions and new billionaire-owned right-wing new outlets – like Paul Marshall’s GB News – complement them to keep the right-wing ring-fence around what is ‘sayable’ in British politics intact.
GB News’ future expansion or otherwise over the coming years may be a key factor determining the domain of the politically feasible for the next government. One participant in a focus group explained that the reason why she thinks everyone should watch GB News is, because people just talk, there is no right or wrong, and ‘it’s just opinions’ (as opposed to reasoned arguments based on facts?). The growing influence of GB News on UK public opinion may be the single most serious threat to UK democracy in the coming years. If Brexit is a leaking barrel of toxic waste lingering at the bottom of the political ocean, GB News may become the political equivalent of a core meltdown in a nuclear power plant.
Strategic and relative dishonesty
The influence of right-wing media outlets – or rather their editors and owners – over British politics has constrained the field of what is sayable and feasible so much that there is indeed little daylight between what Starmer says about Brexit and immigration and what Sunak – and indeed Farage – say. That does not mean that ‘they are all the same’ and that it does not matter who we vote for. Rather, it means that there may be a considerable discrepancy between what politicians say before the election and what they do afterwards. I have written before about my concerns with such a tactic of strategic dishonesty, which obviously may lead to a sense of betrayal opening up any progressive government to an additional line of attack from the right-wing media.
Of course, despite complaining about politicians dishonesty, people do not really seem to care much about truth in politics. Thus, while Reform supporters tend to explain their support for Farage by referring to his alleged honesty (‘He says it like it is!’), it seems to me that often what they really mean is that he speaks his mind rather than that he is telling the truth. The fact that he has lied repeatedly – e.g. about Brexit – is well-established and easy to prove. Reform supporters know that, but the point is that they do not care about honesty. So, what people like about Farage is not that he tells the truth, but that he tells his truth regardless of the outrage, hurt, and harm he causes. In other words, it is the fact that he claims a right to transgression not that he is honest – in the sense of telling the truth – that makes him attractive to voters.
Yet, interestingly, while far-right voters forgive their transgressive role models any lie, there sense of honesty is relative. When it comes to actors further to the centre or left of the political spectrum, they are accused of and harshly judged for any perceived lack of honesty. Claims of betrayal – by judges, the ‘Remainer parliament,’ and now even the conservatives – have been well rehearsed in relation to Brexit. Starmer’s silence – or at least extreme vagueness – about how exactly he wants to ‘make Brexit work’ while maintaining his red lines and now manifesto commitments (no rejoining, no single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement) considerably constrains his room for manoeuvre if he wants to avoid inevitable criticism for betraying the people if he becomes the next PM.
While Starmer’s ultra-cautious strategy may be understandable given the recent Corbyn electoral disaster and the force of right-wing voices in the country, it has an important implication, namely that it prevents Labour from changing what is on offer in British electoral politics.
Fixing the supply side
Perhaps observers are right to say that we do not need to talk about Brexit in this election. After all, it is a hugely divisive issue that has not led to any constructive and problem-solving orientated policymaking, but anger, hatred, and irrational policies. So, ignoring the issue for now perhaps has some positives. But ultimately it is delaying the inevitable and leads us into another five years where a government’s destiny is tied to the toxic waste left behind by that fatal referendum result from a decade ago.
The government who seeks to remove the barrel of toxic waste from British politics, would have to be able to change the narrative on ‘the people’s will’ by making a credible case that ‘the people’ have changed their minds. Perhaps that can happen after the election, but of course the accusation that the next government does not have a mandate to ‘fix Brexit’ – rather than making it work – will loom large, thus constraining the political leeway.
Therefore, like in other areas, centrist parties urgently need to stop buying into the narratives imposed by the far right and instead start imposing their own. Trying to beat the far-right on its own terms has proven a disastrous strategy – not just in Britain but also elsewhere. Chris Grey writes about the Tories’ approach to migration: “repeatedly making undeliverable promises about immigration to head off the Farage challenge” has led to “the invariable result of feeding that challenge when the promises are not kept.” The GE campaign has shown that Labour seems to be committing the same mistake with the Tories. Rather than challenging the terms of the debate imposed by the Tories, Starmer’s Labour is seeking to outdo the Tories on their policy goals. This is true for immigration, Brexit, taxation, and economic policy more broadly.
The reason why progressive forces are reluctant to tackle Tory policies head on is – besides the constraints imposed by the right-wing media – the mistaken belief that they somehow reflect what people want, i.e. that there is demand for the sort of policies the Tories propose. The most egregious example of policies that Tories offer but people do not want is the strategic underfunding of the NHS and its stealth privatisation, the pollution of our sea and rivers, and increasingly Brexit.
More broadly, the assumption that far right figures like Farage or Lee Anderson simply say what ordinary people think is the most dangerous idea that prevents centrist and progressive forces from confidently challenging far-right ideas head on. It is not only a dangerous idea, but it is also false. In fact: People don’t think, they feel!
I know, coming from an academic, that may sound arrogant, but I include myself in this: My reaction to events is primarily emotional. I am shocked, get angry, or sad, less often these days, happy – then I calm down, read up, consider alternative views, and open my mouth once I feel confident, I have done my intellectual ‘due diligence,’ kept my emotions and prejudices in check, and allowed for the possibility that I may be wrong. I do not always have – or take – the time to go through this process. Sometimes I react emotionally – sometimes – to save time or effort – I rely on other people’s arguments rather than my own. Far right Reform and Tory voters are no different.
A recent New Agents report from Leigh – near Manchester – illustrates that. John from Leigh did not come up with the idea that – to paraphrase – everywhere Muslims go, the country ends up adopting Sharia law. He heard or read it somewhere. Karen’s argument that immigrants are responsible for low wages is not based on her own reflections, but something she has picked up from someone else. These are ideas they were fed by someone else and made their own because they provide them with a way of understanding and coping with their own situation. They chime with their feelings of frustration and anger over their living standards because it provides a reason, an explanation, and a scape goat – and thus also hope for an easy solution (i.e. “zero net migration”).
But John and Karen equally well could adopt the idea that it is because of the increasing pressures on companies to pay dividends to shareholders that wages are low, not because of an oversupply of low-skilled workers. Or that Muslims do not replace our culture, but rather enrich it by adding new ideas, points of views, ways of doing things as migration has done for millennia.
In other words, what needs fixing is not the demand side of politics – i.e. what John and Karen ask for – but the supply side, i.e. what sort of ideas and explanations are being heard by voters. The centrist and progressive forces’ role here is to provide narratives and explanations that are much closer to actually capturing what is wrong with our country than the facile scapegoating the far right relies on.
Of course, you cannot make people stop thinking in us v. them terms, but you can redefine who ‘us’ is. If the far right win the battle over the us, it will be defined as white British born individuals. If more progressive forces prevail, ‘us’ may come to mean anyone living in our country and contributing to its prosperity regardless of skin colour, gender, and religion.
Focussing on fixing the supply side of democracy is based on the acknowledgement that it is not people who make democracy dangerous - its political entrepreneurs like Farage, Braverman, Rees-Mogg, and Truss. Consequently, the solution cannot be to imitate those who claim that their horrific ideas speak for the people. The solution is to provide people with an alternative voice.
Ignoring that basic fact about democracy is the greatest sin of our governing elite who has let us down for decades. The 2016 referendum best illustration of the incredible inaptness of our political elite. People did not want Brexit, Farage and UKIP did. What people wanted is to feel empowered to finally do something about their situation. To do something that gives them hope. Voting to exit the EU was the only thing on offer. A less incompetent Prime Minister may have come up with a more creative offer for people to choose from – perhaps even one that would have started addressing some of the very real issues people are facing.
In other words, the problem in British politics is not Farage – the problem is Cameron. It is the role of political leaders – and first and foremost the PM – to make sure demagogues like Farage cannot damage democracies. That does not mean ignoring what ‘the people’ want, but it means doing more than trying to fend off unhinged challengers by coopting – and thus feeding – their ideas just because they happen to be capturing part of the electorate. It means offering alternative narratives, not engaging with the unhinged challengers on their own terms, but setting the record straight. If Brexit has taught us anything, it is that even if you give them what they want, they will not stop challenging you. They will use their battle-proven weapons to fight you in the next battle – Rwanda, EHRC, Ukraine etc. Engaging with them on their own terms legitimises their position and encourages them to become more radical still, leading thus to a downward spiral of extremism. So, what we need is politicians who dare tell people that immigration is not what makes them poorer. It’s politicians that dare tell people that taxes may have to rise to put public services back on their feet and to fund the urgent transition to a net zero economy. With the right narrative Karen and John can be convinced that ‘net zero’ not ‘zero net’ is what our country and the world need to have a prosperous future.
The stakes for Tursday’s GE could not be higher – especially now that France is about to fall into the hands of the far-right and the new European Parliament may very well for the first time have a pretty much explicitly pro-Russia faction. But it is not a time for despair. Whatever happens on Thursday, those who defend liberalism, progressivism, and democracy against reactionary illiberal forces will either have some breathing space or a strong sense of urgency to start working on positive alternative narratives to fix what is on offer in British politics.