David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
Politics can be a rough business. Democracy is an inherently competitive business in which candidates and parties are judged against each other, often by voters whose focus – understandably enough – lie elsewhere.
Politicians have to catch the eye of the disengaged voter. The most effective arguments are simple and appeal to people’s emotions. It is often easier to persuade the voter to be angry about your opponent than enthusiastic about yourself. Negative campaigning is so prevalent because it works.
For all of these reasons, the wider the engagement, the bigger the audience, the more combative politics becomes. Parliamentary elections in safe seats are usually sedate and rather gentlemanly affairs, but in marginal seats the contest can often turn bitter.
For most MPs, for most of their working week, they will happily work constructively with colleagues from other parties. But when the House of Commons chamber is full for Prime Minister’s Questions, many become braying partisans – and intelligent and fundamentally decent party leaders, who are generally comfortable with nuance and complexity, are reduced to making cheap and sometimes crass points.
This is, of course, what happened last week. Sir Keir Starmer mentioned that the mother of the murdered transgender girl, Brianna Ghey, was in the public gallery. A few moments later, Rishi Sunak delivered a prepared line about Starmer’s position on the definition of a woman. A furious Starmer accused Sunak of being shameful.
It was a grim moment. It is not quite the political disaster for Sunak that some thought at the time; social media and the Westminster village got very excited but the story has not retained its prominence. But it was grim nonetheless, and it does have implications.
The first of these is that it underlines a weakness in Sunak in lacking political nous. Following his accepting a bet from Piers Morgan, this weakness is increasingly being exposed. It would be absurd to try to replace him but there are legitimate concerns about how he will perform in an election campaign.
The second is that the issue of transgender rights is, very obviously, a sensitive one. As it happens, on the most contested issues in this area – on participation in women’s sport and, in certain circumstances, the operation of female-only safe spaces – I think biology matters. I worry about how some children appear to be coerced into making life-changing decisions at too early an age.
Just because some find such views uncomfortable – even offensive – does not make them invalid or illegitimate.
But just because these views may be valid and legitimate, does not negate the fact that there comes a point where clumsily expressing such views can be reasonably interpreted as hostility to trans people. Such hostility causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering.
This is an area where rights collide, where feelings can be easily hurt, and sensitivity is required. The Labour Party’s lack of clarity on these issues may be baffling, but best not to joke about it in PMQs.
This was particularly crass when it was believed that Brianna’s mother was watching from the public gallery. But even if she was not, presumably there were plenty of people watching at home who were made to feel uncomfortable. Anyone thinking that this is an issue that should be put at the centre of any Conservative campaign should remember this incident.
Sunak’s joke about the definition of a woman attracted most of the attention but it was not the fiercest or unfairest criticism he made of Starmer. The Prime Minister described the Leader of the Opposition as “a man who thought it was right to defend terrorists”. This is now an oft-repeated attack on Starmer for having briefly represented Hizb ut-Tahir.
Earlier in the week, he told Morgan that Starmer had been on their “side” and, when asked if the Labour leader was a “terrorist sympathiser”, responded by saying that “the facts speak for themselves”. The specific fact he highlighted was that Starmer had provided legal advice to Hizb ut-Tahir.
This is very dangerous language, not least because it raises questions about the rule of law. People accused of terrible things are entitled to legal representation, for without it they will not get a fair trial. As such, good lawyers will act for bad people; associating lawyers with their clients undermines a fundamental aspect of the rule of law that people are entitled to legal representation.
By the way, I do not see this as an attack that is likely to cut through anyway. The idea that Starmer is a terrorist sympathiser is so over the top, and so at variance as to how he is generally perceived, that making the allegation says more about the accuser than the accused. Frustrating though it may be for the Government, but they are not up against Jeremy Corbyn anymore.
Not that Starmer has entirely clean hands when it comes to making unfair and illegitimate criticisms of his opponent. Last year Labour ran posters stating “do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison? Rishi Sunak doesn’t”. Even Labour MP objected to it.
Neither leader is a natural attack dog. They are also politicians with obvious weaknesses, but neither are reprehensible figures for whom the gravest allegations ring true. Yet both have engaged in false and unfair allegations, with Sunak being the worst offender in recent weeks. T
his might be desperation (and there is plenty to be desperate about), perhaps it is driven by the belief that well targeted social media campaigns can allow such negative messages to land with the voters most likely to be sympathetic. But it will also strengthen the perception of the Conservatives as the “nasty party”.
The decline in civility has a wider and more worrying effect. The electorate is disillusioned in general. It does not think much of politicians. When it hears accusations that one side or other is corrupt or dishonest or on the side of terrorists or paedophiles, we should not assume that everyone is going to attribute carefully each allegation to specific politicians or even specific parties.
Ultimately, it is self-destructive. The whole system gets contaminated.
The incentive for any individual party leader to play dirty are strong. But the overall impact is that politics becomes diminished, the gap between the electorate and their representatives grows as trust is weakened, the talented are discouraged from entering or staying in the public life, and the lack of proportion in the use of language means that deserved criticism has becomes devalued when a real villain emerges (as does happen from time to time).
Election years, in particular, generate more heat than light. There will be genuine disagreements, and a robust political system is necessary to expose weaknesses in ideas and people.
But a sense of proportion is necessary: recognition that the national interest requires self-restraint; that there is a difference between being an opponent and being an enemy; and that what we say about our opponents may reveal more about us than it reveals about them.