Miriam Cates is a presenter on GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.
As readers who are parents will attest, there is nothing quite as maddening as bickering teenage siblings. The needless overreactions to minor irritations; the constant arguments over perceived injustices; the instinctive disagreement with whatever your brother or sister happens to say. I have a friend who, whenever her children descend into this downward spiral of tit-for-tat, locks them out of the house until they snap out of it. Yet with the weather as delightful as it has been in recent weeks, this hardly seems a punishment befitting of the crime.
It is not just hormonal adolescents who can’t resist falling into a vortex of ‘microagressions.’ In the online world – especially on X (formerly Twitter) – right wingers are falling over themselves to get one over on their political ‘siblings.’
From the trivial – such as the Conservative Party Chairman trading blows with Reform’s Home Affairs spokesman over who has the most qualified MPs – to the truly distasteful – individuals from Reform UK and Restore arguing over who cares most about rape gang victims – it’s hard to keep up with the disagreements and rivalries on the Right.
Personally, I find it all a bit pathetic and, in the case of the grooming gangs, deeply unedifying. No doubt some of the X combatants will consider me an over-sensitive ‘snowflake’ and point out that in recent decades our politicians have been more concerned with appearing ‘nice’ than doing the right thing. It’s certainly true that failures to control immigration and public spending have been caused, at least in part, by our leaders’ squeamishness in the face of announcing policies that might cause offence to particular groups.
But we must not confuse courage with churlishness. Surely the best and most profitable posture for individuals to adopt in politics – as in life – is to aim to be simultaneously honest and respectful. Good parents teach their children not to hide their disagreements but to always treat their ‘opponents’ fairly and kindly, recognising their own faults as well as others’. People who behave like this are not ‘soft’; rather they demonstrate through their maturity exactly the sort of self-restraint and trustworthiness upon which British success is built.
The valorisation of these character ‘virtues’ is a core foundation of the (post) Christian democratic West, in contrast to tribal societies where provocations are met with violence or totalitarian nations where disagreement is not tolerated at all. Those who cannot see both sides of an argument or can’t resist the temptation to respond in kind to every slight from a political opponent to delegitimise them demonstrate not strength but weakness and immaturity.
Nevertheless, we should not allow a rightful distaste for the childish bickering of some on the online right to blind us to the underlying causes of conflict, for they are, in many cases, serious and important points of disagreement. From the perspective of a casual observer, disagreements about whether or not Britain should leave the ECHR, or whether the Equality Act should be scrapped or reformed, or how to facilitate the removal of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants may seem like splitting hairs. But so many of Britain’s problems today stem from a failure to properly scrutinise the details and foresee the impact of Blairite reforms such as the Human Right Act, Equality Act, the creation of the Supreme Court. It is right that these debates take place.
During the last Parliament, Tory MPs became notorious for indulging in internal arguments. The ‘five families’ of different factions – from the ERG to the New Conservatives – were widely criticised for ‘splitting’ the Party and failing to project ‘unity’. Yet most on the right are now utterly convinced by the arguments that were made by those ‘rebels’ to such disparagement. For example, the majority position on the right seems to be that we should leave the ECHR, reduce immigration, scrap Net Zero and root out DEI from our institutions. It’s easy to remember that just five years ago, official Conservative policy – at that time the only Party on the centre-right – was opposed to all of these positions. Principled arguments must take place, including in public and even when uncomfortable.
But in 2026 we have a different problem. There is no longer any lack of ideas on the Right of British politics. From the Conservatives’ fully worked-up plans for leaving the ECHR, commitments from both Tories and Reform to slash the benefits bill, to Danny Kruger’s proposals for civil service reform and a growing number of ‘oven ready’ proposals from right wing think tanks, there are already vastly more interesting ideas in germination than during the whole arid period of Conservative governance. No doubt competition between the Conservatives and Reform – and now Restore – is the principal reason for this ideological flourishing. As all good conservatives know, monopolies stifle innovation.
On the right there is no longer a shortage of ideas, or a willingness to advocate for them. Rather the question is whether, after the next general election, there will be a government that can implement them. It is all very well to let many flowers bloom, but under our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system, there really is only room for one major party on the Right. Since the Second World War, just four Prime Ministers have won a majority in Parliament with under 40 per cent of the vote share: Harold Wilson in 1976 (39 per cent); Blair in 2005 (35 per cent); Cameron in 2015 (37 per cent); and Starmer in 2024 (34 per cent). To be confident of winning a general election with a majority large enough to deliver a mandate, history would suggest that a party must be polling at around 40 per cent. In our current unprecedented fragmented political ecosystem, no party currently enjoys anywhere near that level of support. Reform UK has topped every poll for over a year, yet even Nigel Farage’s insurgent party has been fixed at just under 30 per cent for the last six to nine months.
We may be about to witness the costs of a split vote on the right in the Makerfield by-election later this month, where just a few thousand – or even a few hundred – votes for Rupert Lowe’s Restore could prevent Reform UK from winning the seat, and potentially open a path for Andy Burnham to become a socialist Prime Minister with a huge majority.
Of course, the Left is also experiencing fragmentation and it is perfectly possible that a party could win a majority in 2029 with an even lower vote share than the current government’s ‘loveless landslide.’ But my point is that under FPTP, a multi-party ecosystem produces highly unpredictable results. Hundreds of ultra-marginal seats, potentially decided by a handful of votes or even a coin toss, could deliver a parliamentary arithmetic that bears little relation to the numbers of votes cast for each party. Just look at the current positions of Reform UK, who won five seats in 2024 with 14 per cent of the vote, while Sir Ed Davey’s Lib Dems, who bagged a healthy 72 seats on just 12 per cent of the vote. With five parties currently dividing the vote relatively evenly, the result of the next election is far from clear. A left-wing coalition – dominated by the Green Party – is one of the many possible outcomes.
Given the parlous state of our public finances, Britain’s burgeoning welfare bill and the long-term implications of failing to deal with the consequences of mass migration, this is not a risk those of us on the Right should be willing to take. As much as we should welcome healthy debate – and recognise the genuine differences between Right wing parties – we also cannot afford to leave things entirely to chance. The damage to our economy and culture wrought by another five years of left-wing government will surely be irreversible. Given that opinion polls suggest the combined vote share on the Right is currently over 50 per cent, it would also be an unforgivable folly to allow this to happen. Yet we are at an impasse, with no obvious path to victory.
So what should be done? How do we respect deeply held principled disagreements whilst maximising the chances of a patriotic conservative majority in the next Parliament?
In no particular order, and with varying degrees of seriousness here are some of the options:
A formal pact between The Conservatives, Reform and Restore
All these parties’ leaders have categorically denied any form of pre-election pact, so clearly this remains a possibility. However, in order for such a deal to be effective, parties would have to agree to stand down in particular constituencies, rather than just to minimise local campaigning. In our current political climate, where voters vote primarily based on their view of the national party rather than constituency campaigns, paper candidates would still pick up enough votes to screw the strategy. Also, since such a pact would cause huge ructions amongst candidates, donors and indeed voters (who might feel they are being denied the opportunity to vote for their party of choice), a formal deal could not be announced until very shortly before or ever after the election is called.
Likelihood: 3/10
A merger
A formal merger between parties on the Right would avoid the potential hazards and unpredictability of an informal election pact. If the Right really could unite, it would be unbeatable in the short term. However, such unity would require serious compromise, good faith negotiations, and a maturity of character among key players that is belied by their current levels of bickering (see above). Plus without external competition, a single right wing party may fall victim to all the problems that beset the Tories from 2010 to 2024.
Likelihood: 1/10
Proportional representation
Bear with me on this one. Conservative-minded Brits seem almost universally opposed to a more European-style system, but in part that seems to be because we were all taught at school that PR enabled the Nazis to come to power in 1930s Germany (personally, I’m not sure Hitler cared all that much about adhering to legitimate political processes). FPTP has certainly served Britain well until recently, but times have changed, and the political realignment, social media and the rise of individualism may have resulted in permanent fragmentation, where multiple parties are incentivised only to appeal only to their narrow bases. Proportional representation would allow each party to maximise their own vote share in the run up to an election, and then form coalitions based on the number of seats won by each tribe. Of course there would be huge resistance to such a massive constitutional reform, but there’s a strong argument that our system is no longer fit for purpose. PR would also offer the opportunity to reset the constituency link, which has made MPs into glorified social workers and reduced the incentive for parliamentarians to focus on national issues.
Likelihood: 0/10
Reduce the franchise
“No taxation without representation” was the rallying cry of the American revolutionaries who – rightly – argued that they should not be expected to pay taxes to the British government with no influence over how the country was run. Yet perhaps the time has come to reverse the slogan and declare ‘no representation without taxation’. Over a half of Brits now live in households that are net recipients of state benefits, yet are still entitled to vote. If you are a beneficiary of taxpayer largesse, there is an obvious incentive to vote for left-wing parties promising to tax and spend. Once a majority of voters are in this position, it’s difficult to see how an election can be won by fiscal conservatives. If only those who paid income tax – or lived in taxpaying households – were allowed to vote, I imagine that support for left-wing parties would fall substantially. Is this gerrymandering? Or just fairness?
Likelihood: 0/10
Swiss-style direct democracy
In Switzerland, citizens are regularly asked to vote in referendums on issues both large and small, from whether farmers should be allowed to ‘dehorn’ their cattle to whether a universal basic income should be introduced (a resounding non / neon / ma no! from the sensible Swiss). Given that the majority of Britons want immigration to be reduced and taxes to be lowered, a few more referendums could guarantee conservative policies are implemented without having to go to the trouble of winning an election. Sadly, given that the trauma of the fallout from the Brexit referendum lives on so vividly in the public consciousness, I don’t expect this suggestion to be met with much enthusiasm.
Likelihood: 1/10
Return to hereditary monarchical rule
The jury is out as to whether a 21st Century Restoration would make Britain more or less conservative, but at least it would no longer be our responsibility.
Likelihood: 0/10
Keep calm and carry on
In all likelihood, none of the above will occur (at least before the next election). The political differences and relational friction between right-wing parties and their leaders is just too great to countenance any meaningful collaboration. Perhaps this is exactly what is needed right now, so that the contest of ideas can rage on, and winners emerge. But the debate on the Right would be more serious, more fruitful and far more appealing if its main protagonists could resist the temptation to bicker like kids and start playing the ball, not the man.
Likelihood: 10/10