The Independent Group’s new politics isn’t so new

The new Independent Group of MPs claims it is going to fix Britain’s “broken politics” and “change politics for the better”. They would say that though, wouldn’t they? Every single time a new political initiative launches or an established party revamps its image, they promise the same thing.

When the British people voted for Brexit, it was widely interpreted as an expression of disenchantment with the current parties and the Westminster “elite”. A better than expected election result for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour was viewed through the same lens and, now, this curious collection of Blairite MPs and pro-EU Tories plans to pose as a radical departure from the old way of doing things.

It might be more accurate to say that this group is reacting to the way that politics has changed very profoundly since the Brexit poll and offering a return to the more settled, predictable landscape that prevailed previously. ‘Centrism’ has gone out of fashion, but it’s hardly a revolutionary idea.

Admittedly, the direction of the current Labour party is even older. Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne espouse a hard-left ideology that developed out of anti-establishment feeling in the 1960s and 1970s. While moderates may eventually regain control of the parliamentary party, the seven MPs who resigned on Monday and formed the Independent Group felt they couldn’t wait any longer.

Their rejection of extreme socialism and condemnation of anti-semitism in Labour formed a persuasive case for a split. Now that they’ve been joined by three disgruntled Conservative MPs, their argument becomes less coherent. The thing that binds together the eleven members most strongly is their shared determination to stop the UK leaving the EU, by staging a second referendum, which could have a short sell-by date as a policy platform.

Many self-declared centrists claim that they feel politically homeless after Brexit, because neither of the two main parties will oppose the result outright. Their disillusionment and Labour’s move to the left have encouraged the idea that there needs to be a realignment of British politics.

Usually this discussion focuses on the supposed need for a ‘centrist’ or ‘moderate’ party – a role that the new group will now try to fulfil. Yet, the notion that remainers and pragmatic soft-Brexiters are not represented in the House of Commons is difficult to sustain. The majority of MPs fall into this category.

The argument that the two main parties are in the grip of extremism isn’t persuasive either. Theresa May is rudderless and useless, but she is certainly not a Tory Corbyn. She’s trying to steer a withdrawal agreement through parliament that would offer a soft Brexit, while Labour is seeking an even closer relationship with the EU.

So far, none of the suggestions for a centrist platform has managed to move beyond europhilia.

The Economist journalist, Jeremy Cliffe, briefly mooted a ‘Radicals’ party that would appeal to pro-EU sentiments, but he also drew up a manifesto of decentralising, free-market policies that would spook the most ardently libertarian ERG member. The Times suggested four new groups in parliament, ranging from the Solidarity Party on the left, standing for a large public sector and high taxes, to The Freedom Party on the right, which would be similar to some of the patriotic populist movements on mainland Europe.

Perhaps the Independent Group really will uproot the old party system and replace it with something that reflects the new political alliances and divisions revealed by Brexit. On the other hand, after the UK leaves the EU, older allegiances and rivalries may re-emerge, as we get back to concentrating on domestic issues.

The three former Tories who today joined eight Labour independents claim to be from the party’s ‘one nation’ wing. That tradition is supposed to value the positive aspects of society that are worth preserving – stability, prosperity and democratic liberties – while recognising that these goods are sustained thanks to institutions and culture that could easily be damaged by sweeping change.

The Conservative party they left was an imperfect vehicle for these ideas, but it is currently the only mainstream party where they are articulated at all. The modern Tories have managed to balance free-market ideology and traditional conservatism remarkably successfully through their history. It is unlikely that the new group, dominated by the social democratic tradition, will accommodate one-nation conservatism so comfortably.

Before the Brexit referendum, it was common to hear commentators complain that both main parties occupied the ‘middle ground’ with too little to separate them. To combine these two flavours of centrism in one movement, then to try to promote it as something completely different is an unlikely recipe for success.