For once, Boris Johnson doesn’t seem to have got away with it. Unlike so many other outrages that fizzled away in a single news cycle, the Owen Paterson drama has now lasted more than a week—and counting. In the best tradition of British political scandals, it has in fact gained new momentum. Following the government’s cack-handed attempt to abolish the committee which found Paterson guilty of breaking lobbying rules, its rapid U-turn, and Paterson’s subsequent resignation, dozens more MPs are now in the frame for their second jobs, potential conflicts of interest and riding roughshod over basic standards of behaviour. Geoffrey Cox is accused of using his parliamentary office to conduct business in the British Virgin Islands.
Cox denies wrongdoing and has arrogantly asserted that if voters in West Devon are unhappy with his outside work, they can signal their discontent at the ballot box. His seat is not currently being contested. But one constituency affected by wrongdoing is, in fact, up for grabs—Paterson’s—and for once, there looks to be a genuine opportunity.
The suggestion is that England’s opposition parties do the unthinkable and act strategically. That is, they demonstrate that they dislike the government and its corruption more than they dislike each other. So far, the opposition parties have all but ruled it out—but it is not too late for them to change their minds.
The situation could scarcely be better suited to such collective action. Far from being the “Westminster bubble story” ministers so desperately hoped for, the Paterson affair and the government’s response may have proved a turning point. The Tories have lost their poll lead or even fallen behind. Conservative newspapers are still leading with the story, directing an anger at Johnson unprecedented since he became prime minister. And, characteristically, Johnson himself has still not taken personal responsibility or even apologised. Ominously, party figures are increasingly briefing their discontent. The Conservatives did not become the most successful political force in Europe through squeamishness, and past leaders remember how the story ends.
The key, then, is to keep applying pressure and ensure the story stays in the public consciousness. A Conservative loss in North Shropshire would be as shocking as the party’s June defeat in Chesham and Amersham—and much more damaging. But there is simply no way to pull it off without cooperation.
It is true that North Shropshire represents a tremendous obstacle for opposition parties, whether campaigning alone or together. Paterson won 62.7 per cent of the vote in 2019, with Labour a distant second on 22.1. The Conservatives have not won the seat with less than 50 per cent of the vote since 2005 (and even then it was 49.6). And to be sure, we are not in the same political territory as 1997, when the Tory majority barely scraped 2,000 votes.
1997 was, of course, the year of Martin Bell—the former BBC journalist who defeated Neil Hamilton in ultra-safe Tatton while other parties stepped aside. This time will be different—not least because Hamilton remained a candidate and Paterson will not—but the outline of the story is feeling increasingly familiar. That is, a Conservative government has been in power too long, got away with too much, and finally worn out the electorate’s patience.
We know that the last five years have been uniquely volatile in modern British politics. Paterson was a popular local figure but the next Tory candidate may not be. A unifying independent figure could tap into genuine anger about the Conservative Party’s complacency towards—even encouragement of—cronyism and sleaze.
A collaboration would be positive for all the parties. Even if they lost, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens could send a clear message to voters: probity matters; upholding democracy matters; and some things, at some moments, are more important than policy differences.
Naturally, the proposal to pool a candidate has attracted mockery. Political centrists have been attacked by the left for their “fantasy football” suggestions of ex-Tories such as Rory Stewart or Anna Soubry. And yet the point is North Shropshire is not Camden and voters there are not, by and large, left-wing progressives. This is about actually coming together to build the society we want to see; demonstrating that there may be a majority in this country willing change.
Some critics have accused the plan’s proponents of seeking to game the system, denying voters in North Shropshire the full range of political choices. The truth is that Britain’s entire electoral system is a game. Millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised by a winner-takes-all postcode lottery which prizes a few dozen marginal seats and renders everyone else’s vote meaningless. If it takes a tactical candidacy to advance the case for a more proportional voting system, opposition parties should relish the opportunity. Labour, in particular, must accept that its best long-term hopes of political power lie in such reform.
Ultimately, we face a question that is both political and philosophical. The Tories are facing genuine public anger, and there is a chance to give expression to it. If now is not the moment to take a stand, when will be?
