Our Anti-Democratic Comment Journalism

Boris Johnson's return to front line politics has come to nought. But for a while it did look like he might reach the nomination threshold and put himself in front of the membership. While this seemed likely, a major tic asserted itself on the face of opinion journalism: the idea members of political parties should have no say over who leads them. John Rentoul mined this seam at the start of Liz Truss's premiership, and no doubt feels vindicated following her descent into a complete shambles. But it's not just him. There appears to be agreement among most centrist and right wing commentators that party democracy is a bad thing because the members frequently get it wrong.

This argument is reactionary and anti-democratic. It's assumpting MPs know politics better and have a stronger handle on what's happening in the country, and so choosing a leader should be up to them. It's a dangerous argument as well. There is no qualitative difference between this and thinking the franchise should be withdrawn, because ordinary people have a weak grasp on political issues and only a fleeting interest in the Issues That Matter. Also, the suggestion MPs are more representative than party members is preposterous. True, an MP is voted in to represent their constituents but they are elected because they're on a party ticket. Only a tiny handful of politicians can claim to have a personal mandate. And second, far from knowing their constituents the £85k salary, the drama of the Westminster village, the status and the freebies that come with it, and their access to the media offers a very privileged life that puts social distance between them and their voters. The membership of a political party is much more representative, sociologically speaking. Yes, even the 170-odd thousand Tory members have more in common with 'the people' than their parliamentarians. They feel the pressure of everyday life, and it speaks of Liz Truss's stupidity - and isolation from the membership - that she inadvertently targeted the Tories' voter coalition for a round of attacks.

It's not enough to set out and repeat the argument. A blue tick is not about to have a light bulb moment because these points are politely explained to them. There has to be something driving this surge of reaction toward its elitist consensus. I would suggest two things. We have had three leaders in the two main parties voted in that threatened this country's political and economic establishment. On the right there was Truss and Boris Johnson (and maybe him again, in the future), and on the left Jeremy Corbyn. The first two did untold damage to the legitimacy of the British state, while the latter threatened a fundamental rewriting of politics and the reversal of 40 years of ruling class gains at the expense of workers. To be a paid commentator is a small-c conservative endeavour, because one has a stake in maintaining all that is as is. If party members' democracy impinges on their role, then it needs putting to bed.

The second is power play. It takes time to cultivate trusted relationships inside Westminster, and as we saw when Corbynism erupted the hacks were caught off balance because they had no lines to the new Labour leader nor his team. Without those lines, not only could they not say what was going on with any accuracy but their avenues for influencing proceedings were shut down too. To a much lesser extent, the same was the case with Johnson and Truss. They were doing their own thing, in the main, regardless of what the briefcase-adoring commentariat thought. With Keir Starmer and Labour's return to suited-and-booted politics, that influence and framing of issues is working again. The media obsession with trans women, for example, finds an echo in the timidity and capitulation of the shadow cabinet. The commentariat's 'there's no money left' take on the economy after Truss is repeated in Starmer's commitment to "wait" to do Labour things and work on the problems. If Rishi Sunak wins the Tory leadership, that same soft influence over policy will be there in ways that wouldn't have been the case if Johnson had won. In other words, the hacks are protecting their unspoken power and reach over ministers and MPs generally - something that can be pushed back against if a leader's legitimacy lies in a democratic vote outside of Westminster. Corbyn and Johnson are both examples of this.

It's very obvious we need a new politics in this country, and one that better reflects the dynamics and preferences of our class than the exclusionary and corrupt Westminster system we're stuck with. And such a renewal means tackling and curbing the institutionally conservative influence of our thin, unaccountable layer of professional gawkers and talkers. They enjoy too much influence over politics than they warrant.