My theory: It's because the UK is particularly un-democratic.
In contrast to the US, where *anyone* can run and win in a party primary, my understanding is that to run with a UK party, you have to secure approval by certain party committees. These committees are staffed by old-guard people (for an American, perhaps comparable to the Bushes, Romneys, etc.) The recent PM selections were also done by MPs, instead of via direct democracy (except for one round where voters got the very temporary privilege of picking Truss over Sunak.)
That electoral structure is preventing the conservative party from having MPs who are actually in touch with their base.
While the Conservative party is captured by business elites who are out of touch with their base, Labour is captured by academic/activist elites who are out of touch with theirs.
In contrast, US conservative politicians post-Trump (Trump, DeSantis, etc) are now culturally in touch with their voters. The transition was faster in the US because there were fewer elite-gatekept hoops for politicians to jump through to run.
Also in contrast, continental Europe has a very democratic system that allows easy entrance of 3rd parties, something that's not the case in the UK or US. This has allowed populists to achieve meaningful wins in countries like Sweden.
UK politics will become more stable if the will of voters is actually reflected, and populist demands are appeased more -- which perhaps would be reflected in more social democracy on the right and less wokism on the left.
The UK should consider switching to the continental European system.
Yet party grassroots tend to favour leaders like Truss and Corbyn who are associated with recent instability? In defence of party old guards, they tend to be more in touch with the preferences of voters!
1) Truss / Corbyn are likely not who grassroots would actually pick. E.g., voters only picked Truss, given the limited choice between her and Sunak. But her big tax cut idea hardly seemed grassroots-inspired.
2) I suspect the people voters would actually pick would be more destabilizing in the short run -- but any big re-adjustment will necessarily lead to some short-term instability. But in the long run, policies that more closely reflect what voters want likely will create relative stability. Look at, say, Norway or Switzerland, for some of the clearest-cut examples.
Political crystal balls are in short supply at present, although it seems that some individuals are more attuned to the pulse of public opinion than others. Unfortunately, for us as a nation and for the western geopolitical states as a whole, we are seeing the rise of the political pragmatist. This in response to the very breakdown that you described.
No better a political weathervane exists in the UK than one Boris Johnson. He was never going to take back over following the ill-fated experiment with 'Trussonomics'. He will, however, be able to watch as the main architect of his toppling is ridiculed as being economically impotent. Then, when the Labour Party win the next General Election, he will seek to return as Leader of the Opposition to criticise with his trademark bombast.
He will then be well set to become the first Prime Minister since Harold Wilson to be returned as Prime Minister on two non-consecutive General Elections.
I don't believe that the UK has a 'traditional reputation for stability'. I don't believe it has had such a reputation since the beginning of written history. Of course, if you compare it to Somalia or Afghanistan, then yes, but the appearance of stability has always been subject to the whim of the ochlocracy and its approval or - out and out repression by the powers that be. The mob is currently in thrall to social media; hardly anybody would argue that it is not a battle ground for the truth. "Free speech" is in the eye of the beholder, with opposing factions scrambling to the top of the pyramid of moral hegemony. Speech itself has become a minefield of social identifiers and shibboleths. Such sacred texts as the First Amendment are now described by academics such as Stanley Fish as having no 'neutral realm', that is, free speech depends on who has the upper hand or more precisely, who controls the dialogue. Similarly the mainstream media has become highly partisan and proscriptive. Some traditional tribal allegiances have dissolved. Again this is due in part to information flow, aspiration and on occasions, paranoia. As things stand we inhabit a world with a raft of anarchic, twisted discourse which is not discourse at all but hate filled ranting. Any current instability does, I believe, stem from fear and utter confusion by those who rely on Twitter for their world view.
Yes of course, all of this destabilises society in general and politics in particular. I agree that tribal politics has perhaps had its day, and that would be a good thing, but because society is undergoing the most radical change since the Industrial Revolution, with the exponential growth of information, good and bad, I doubt there with be the stability we all crave.
My theory: It's because the UK is particularly un-democratic.
In contrast to the US, where *anyone* can run and win in a party primary, my understanding is that to run with a UK party, you have to secure approval by certain party committees. These committees are staffed by old-guard people (for an American, perhaps comparable to the Bushes, Romneys, etc.) The recent PM selections were also done by MPs, instead of via direct democracy (except for one round where voters got the very temporary privilege of picking Truss over Sunak.)
That electoral structure is preventing the conservative party from having MPs who are actually in touch with their base.
While the Conservative party is captured by business elites who are out of touch with their base, Labour is captured by academic/activist elites who are out of touch with theirs.
In contrast, US conservative politicians post-Trump (Trump, DeSantis, etc) are now culturally in touch with their voters. The transition was faster in the US because there were fewer elite-gatekept hoops for politicians to jump through to run.
Also in contrast, continental Europe has a very democratic system that allows easy entrance of 3rd parties, something that's not the case in the UK or US. This has allowed populists to achieve meaningful wins in countries like Sweden.
Raheem Kassam makes this point well here: https://www.newsweek.com/britains-tory-turmoil-about-more-mere-partisan-blundering-opinion-1753659
UK politics will become more stable if the will of voters is actually reflected, and populist demands are appeased more -- which perhaps would be reflected in more social democracy on the right and less wokism on the left.
The UK should consider switching to the continental European system.
Yet party grassroots tend to favour leaders like Truss and Corbyn who are associated with recent instability? In defence of party old guards, they tend to be more in touch with the preferences of voters!
Two points:
1) Truss / Corbyn are likely not who grassroots would actually pick. E.g., voters only picked Truss, given the limited choice between her and Sunak. But her big tax cut idea hardly seemed grassroots-inspired.
2) I suspect the people voters would actually pick would be more destabilizing in the short run -- but any big re-adjustment will necessarily lead to some short-term instability. But in the long run, policies that more closely reflect what voters want likely will create relative stability. Look at, say, Norway or Switzerland, for some of the clearest-cut examples.
As always, an interesting read, Tom.
Political crystal balls are in short supply at present, although it seems that some individuals are more attuned to the pulse of public opinion than others. Unfortunately, for us as a nation and for the western geopolitical states as a whole, we are seeing the rise of the political pragmatist. This in response to the very breakdown that you described.
No better a political weathervane exists in the UK than one Boris Johnson. He was never going to take back over following the ill-fated experiment with 'Trussonomics'. He will, however, be able to watch as the main architect of his toppling is ridiculed as being economically impotent. Then, when the Labour Party win the next General Election, he will seek to return as Leader of the Opposition to criticise with his trademark bombast.
He will then be well set to become the first Prime Minister since Harold Wilson to be returned as Prime Minister on two non-consecutive General Elections.
Thanks Mike! Hope you're wrong about Johnson :-S
I don't believe that the UK has a 'traditional reputation for stability'. I don't believe it has had such a reputation since the beginning of written history. Of course, if you compare it to Somalia or Afghanistan, then yes, but the appearance of stability has always been subject to the whim of the ochlocracy and its approval or - out and out repression by the powers that be. The mob is currently in thrall to social media; hardly anybody would argue that it is not a battle ground for the truth. "Free speech" is in the eye of the beholder, with opposing factions scrambling to the top of the pyramid of moral hegemony. Speech itself has become a minefield of social identifiers and shibboleths. Such sacred texts as the First Amendment are now described by academics such as Stanley Fish as having no 'neutral realm', that is, free speech depends on who has the upper hand or more precisely, who controls the dialogue. Similarly the mainstream media has become highly partisan and proscriptive. Some traditional tribal allegiances have dissolved. Again this is due in part to information flow, aspiration and on occasions, paranoia. As things stand we inhabit a world with a raft of anarchic, twisted discourse which is not discourse at all but hate filled ranting. Any current instability does, I believe, stem from fear and utter confusion by those who rely on Twitter for their world view.
Yes of course, all of this destabilises society in general and politics in particular. I agree that tribal politics has perhaps had its day, and that would be a good thing, but because society is undergoing the most radical change since the Industrial Revolution, with the exponential growth of information, good and bad, I doubt there with be the stability we all crave.