The racist rioting came to an end. The criminal justice system responded as required, Keir Starmer looked prime ministerial but lost his holiday, temperatures cooled and the country moved on.
I wrote last week about how Nigel Farage got himself on the wrong side of the argument over Southport and the Tory leadership candidates should have been more ruthless in exposing his errors. Since then, Tom Tugendhat has joined Mel Stride and James Cleverly in explicitly criticising Farage. Better late than never.
The politics of this are simple. There is a proportion of the electorate that is quick to believe conspiracy theories, that considers the country to be rigged against white people, and that regards the violent protesters as standing up for the country. Thankfully, it is a relatively small proportion and the rest of the British population has a low opinion of them. A political party that has aspirations to obtain 40 per cent or more of the vote in a general election has to be unambiguously aligned with the majority.
In contrast, the way in which Farage spoke of recent violence as being “nothing to what could happen over the course of the next few weeks” betrayed his relish at the situation. Presumably he hoped that these would be the circumstances in which his “strong man” approach would cut through. It now looks hysterical.
Those politicians who have been most forthright in raising concerns about immigration have a greater responsibility to condemn forcefully and straight-forwardly the violent protests. n that context, Farage failed badly. A lesser offender was Robert Jenrick, whose remarks about locking up those who chant “Allahu Akbar” were certainly ill-judged but, as a whole, none of the Tory leadership candidates gave the rioters succour. The country wants calmness not conflict.
The riots are behind us. But there is another test of senior Conservatives’ attitude to mob violence driven by conspiracy theories. It is their approach to Donald Trump.
An autumn general election would have resulted in the UK poll coinciding with the US one. Trump might have been a factor then. Now, it is the Tory leadership race which coincides with the presidential contest.
It is always an option for someone aspiring to be prime minister to refuse to be drawn into expressing a view on an US presidential candidate. It is a perfectly respectable and honourable position to take.
This is not the position, however, that Jenrick has taken. He has confirmed that if he was a US citizen he would vote for Trump.
Even putting aside Trump’s protectionism, less than steadfast support for Western security and very evident flaws as a human being, it is surely impossible to ignore the events of 6 January 2021. Rather than accept the democratic process, Trump made baseless claims about the legitimacy of the election of the previous November, sought to intimidate fellow Republicans – including his own vice-president – into overturning the result, and, when that failed, incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol. Unfortunately, he will not be brought to trial in advance of this year’s election but there is enough evidence in the public domain to confirm his culpability.
His behaviour compares to those who pushed conspiracy theories and other forms of misinformation after the Southport tragedy. In the US, however, the appetite for such nonsense is much greater than in the UK. This has enabled Trump to recover, easily win the Republican nomination and, until President Biden’s withdrawal from the race, become the strong favourite to win again in November.
The situation is now much less certain. Kamala Harris is clearly a more formidable opponent than Biden and has political momentum. Trump made a bad choice for vice-presidential nominee in JD Vance and is evidently rattled. (By the way, the Democrats – flush with cash – must be tempted to throw resources at Vance’s home state of Ohio just to reinforce any doubts Trump has about his pick.)
Despite her political honeymoon and the undoubted buzz about her campaign, I remain a Harris-sceptic. From a UK perspective, it is extraordinary that she has not been subject to a single broadcast interview since Biden’s withdrawal. She remains untested and although she is likely to have a good week with the Democrat National Convention in Chicago, there will come a time when the US public will take a second look. Not being Trump should be enough to win in November, but it might not be.
The chances are that the US presidential election will be close. It is a divided country and both candidates are likely to have a high floor but a low ceiling. A few thousand votes in a few swing states may make all the difference, just as was the case in 2016 and 2020.
So here is a scenario that is very plausible. Harris wins in November, but only just. Trump refuses to accept the result. And the MAGA movement takes to the streets trying to overturn it, not just in Washington DC but in every state where Harris won by a small margin.
In those circumstances, for a newly elected leader of a British political party trying to make a favourable impression, I am not convinced that being a known Trump supporter is a very good way to introduce yourself to the country.
By associating himself with Trump, Jenrick has made an unnecessary and potentially serious mistake.
[See also: The Tories should expose Nigel Farage for who he is]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
Content from our partners
Related
