The Westminster elections are only a week away and the Tory party is battling the odds with all the grace of Wile E Coyote running off a cliff, dangling in mid-air before realising he is about to plunge into a chasm, while the Road Runner grins and goes “Beep-beep!”. As the Tories pile cartoon calamity on disaster and the staff snag the candlesticks on the way out, a serene Keir Starmer and co are hardly bothered to utter a beep.
Tired of summoning up 10 impossible policies before breakfast, the geniuses at Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) are mounting their own Project Fear. This was always going to be tricky. After a decade of Tory slapstick how do you induce nightmares about the legendarily boring, resolutely moderate Starmer, someone who says things such as “There is a degree of steadfast seriousness that is much needed across the country”, someone who reckons his slogan could be “Make Britain Serious Again”?
What CCHQ does is point to the polls predicting a 200-seat overall majority for Starmer’s party (and maybe fewer than 100 seats for the Conservatives), call it something meaningless such as a “supermajority” and pronounce the demise of that much-cherished British parliamentary democracy. Michael McDowell did something similar here in 2002 when he shinned up a lamp-post with the PDs’ “One-Party Government? No Thanks!” poster, halting erstwhile partner Fianna Fáil’s momentum before promptly joining them in government again.
But the scale of Starmer’s momentum puts it beyond reach. What the Tories’ “supermajority” scare actually means is they may lose so badly they won’t have enough seats to mount an official opposition. In which case they lose substantial state aid, since official opposition funding is based on seat numbers. They lose their six profile-grabbing statement/questions at prime minister’s questions. They lose the 17 opposition days that allow the official opposition party to take control of the agenda. They lose access to national security briefings, they lose relevance.
Even if they manage to beat the Liberal Democrats into third place, the new leader will have to face the recurring nightmare of the far-right crazies – factions now grouped into a gang that styles itself the “five families” after New York City’s organised crime families – and their plan for what remains of the party’s soul. Not to mention the resurrection of Nigel Farage in his Man from del Monte rig-out.
[ Conservative party election campaign reeling under weight of betting scandalOpens in new window ]
But this of course is not the loser message wobbly Tory voters are supposed to garner from the “supermajority” scare. The idea is to send them into a panic about the dire prospects for parliamentary scrutiny when Starmer gets his “supermajority” blank cheque, upon which the wobblers will scurry straight back to the Tories to protect the honour of the Mother of Parliaments.
It’s an entire smorgasbord of irony. The current arrangement whereby the House of Commons is one of the most executive-dominated parliaments in the world (with our own trotting not far behind) seemed just fine from a Tory point of view for the past 14 years. It’s only 4½ years since Boris Johnson was elected with a thumping (super?) majority of 80 to Get Brexit Done.
In short, it’s not about the size of the majority. Whether it’s zero, 80 or 200, the number is meaningless when a government and its ideological drivers place no value on the ‘parliamentary’ part of parliamentary democracy
That Tory reverence for parliamentary democracy was on full display the previous summer during Johnson’s leadership campaign when the now disgraced hedge funder and arch-Brexiteer Crispin Odey was filmed advocating the proroguing of parliament with the candidate. A month later parliament was duly prorogued.
That reverence was again reflected in Johnson’s expulsion of 21 of his most sane and rational MPs from the parliamentary party for rebelling against a no-deal Brexit, before he signed up to that barely-scanned “oven-ready” withdrawal deal which he attempted to bulldoze through parliament in a derisory three days.
After the December election when he finally got Brexit “done” thanks to his stonking new 80-seat majority he took the view that no one had a right to oppose his parliamentary plans according to an Institute for Government analysis. His ministers demonstrated their fealty to parliament by refusing to entertain even the smallest amendments to Bills. Some resisted any appearances before select committees. Meanwhile he created and exercised new ministerial powers with merry abandon, using secondary legislation to bypass parliamentary opposition.
Theresa May, despite her much-vaunted respect for parliament and her tiny majority, also gave parliament little or no meaningful role in her disastrous interpretation of Brexit red lines or in much parliamentary scrutiny later. At one stage she refused to allow any opposition or even backbench debates in the Commons for more than five months. Her notorious deal with the DUP, intended to bypass the rest of parliament, went predictably sour.
In short, it’s not about the size of the majority. Whether it’s zero, 80 or 200, the number is meaningless when a government and its ideological drivers place no value on the “parliamentary” part of parliamentary democracy.
If Tories believe they can raise a “supermajority” scare given their recent history, it surely reveals something of how voters are viewed in CCHQ. They all deserve what’s coming.