Writing from London

Writing from London

Share this post

Writing from London
Writing from London
Conservatives will learn to regret their extremism

Conservatives will learn to regret their extremism

After the election, the left will repay them in kind

Nick Cohen's avatar
Nick Cohen
Sep 12, 2023
∙ Paid
24

Share this post

Writing from London
Writing from London
Conservatives will learn to regret their extremism
1
Share

My political pieces are for everyone. But please sign up as a free subscriber to receive more posts. Or you can help me carry on writing by becoming a paying subscriber. You will then receive access to all posts, archives and podcasts. A subscription costs just £1.15 a week, and there is a free trial on offer too!


In politics, as in the rest of life, it is the small acts of malice that reveal the worst side of a character. The British Conservatives decided to secure a tiny electoral advantage by insisting on voters producing ID – a passport or driving licence – before they could enjoy their democratic rights. The measure was a blatant attempt to stop poor people voting, and the first restriction of the franchise since 1832:  a petty, class-ridden attempt to rig the system in the Tories’ favour.

A report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on democracy this morning described the electoral ID law as a  “poisoned cure” that prevented at least 14,000 people from voting in the last local elections. The selection of documents accepted as qualifying ID was “arbitrary.” Inevitably the inquiry found evidence of racial and disability discrimination at polling stations.

As John Nicolson MP, who chaired the inquiry, said:

“Voters must be able to exercise their democratic rights by casting their ballot, and they must have the security of knowing that no one is going to undermine that right by voting in their name. The voter-ID system, as it stands, doesn’t get the balance right. You don’t solve anything by disenfranchising voters.”

But, of course, Conservatives hope that they can solve their problems by playing with the voting system. I have put up a long piece below explaining their grim decision to import voter suppression techniques from the US. (Paywall can be jumped with a free trial.)

There is a wider point about the Conservatives’ tactics, however, that no Tory I know has mentioned, but which Professor Jonathan Portes of Kings College, London, made forcefully to me in this week’s Lowdown podcast. Changes to the electoral system ought to be the result of a consensus between the parties, otherwise we will just have the government of the day fixing the system to suit itself – which is precisely what the Conservatives have done.

Following the US Republicans, they used their majority to force through changes that might help them win elections. They did not consult Labour or the Liberal Democrats, the nationalist parties, or Greens, who were all opposed to voter ID.  The UK is a Parliamentary democracy. The Conservatives have a majority in Parliament. Nothing in our unwritten constitution forces the Conservatives to behave like good chaps and look for compromise. They could do as they wished, and they did.

Portes made an argument that has occurred to me with ever greater frequency since 2016. If a Conservative government can rig the system in their favour, why cannot a Labour government do the same? It could introduce PR on the model we already use for Scottish and Welsh elections. Or give EU citizens and other long-term residents the vote. (One suspects that, after Brexit EU, nationals will not be natural Tory voters.)

What will the Conservatives say? That no one party should assign itself the right to rig the system just because it has a majority? The words will fall from their lips like ashes. That there should be a referendum? How can there be when they offered no referendums on their changes?

For years I have watched Conservative journalists lay into the BBC with a deranged single-mindedness that undermines our society’s respect for freedom of the press. It never seemed to occur to them that a Labour government might go for them with equal single-mindedness by bringing in controls on the press,  which it clearly wants to do, or by stopping the growth of right-wing TV in the UK.

For years, too, political debate has assumed that the only arguments that matter are the arguments within the Conservative party. What else has Brexit been? So great was the party’s sense of entitlement that it threw way a restraint that once controlled all governments: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

There is a side of me that against my better nature wants a Labour government to just let rip. It would seem like a type of justice, after so many years of the Conservatives tearing up the conventions of public life to advance their factional interests, for Labour to do the same. But, alas, you can’t think like that. Doubtless Labour will go too far. And doubtless it will have to be opposed. But Conservatives will be in no position to do the opposing.


How voter suppression came to England

The state-induced panic about a crime as rare as poaching the King’s unicorns

April 2023

ENGLAND’S local elections on 4 May will be the first since the arrival of universal suffrage in 1929 that a government will seek to rig by denying the right to vote. If the ruling Conservative party gets its way, the local contests will be the prelude for full-scale voter suppression at the 2024 general election.

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Writing from London to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Nick Cohen
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share