The Rory Stewart fallacy: Why do we outsource opposition to the government to its friends?
The only criticism of the political establishment which is guaranteed a hearing, is the criticism which comes from within.
This week’s BBC Question Time was notable for having not one, but three, Conservatives on the panel.Â
The first was the Conservative MP Chris Philp, the second was the GB News presenter, and former Conservative candidate, Tom Harwood, and the third was the former Conservative Minister Rory Stewart.
When I highlighted this fact on Twitter earlier this week quite a few people responded by praising Stewart and suggesting that he somehow didn’t count as a Conservative.
In some respects I can understand this. Stewart has become a popular figure among certain centre-left commentators in recent years due to his strident and articulate opposition to Boris Johnson’s leadership.
His approach to politics is some distance from the reckless, and sometimes lawless, approach taken by the Prime Minister and he is also an effective and persuasive advocate for his own particular branch of Conservatism.
Yet he is still a Conservative. Just like Theresa May who is also sometimes feted by some on the centre-left for her opposition to Johnson, despite her long and dismal record as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, I do find the fascination with Stewart somewhat curious.Â
Because once you strip away his differences in style and approach, Stewart’s politics are not vastly different from the man who he now dedicates himself to criticising - or indeed from 90% of his other former Conservative colleagues.
This fact became obvious during the Question Time discussion, when Stewart detailed his pretty much bog-standard Conservative views on issues like the right to strike (which, like most Conservatives, he wants to restrict).
Yet despite this fact, Stewart appears to remain incredibly popular with people whose politics he largely does not share, aside from their mutual distaste for the Prime Minister.
In many respects Stewart is merely the mirror image of another political archetype -which is the left-winger turned arch-critic of the left.
These figures can normally be found as columnists at right-wing publications such as the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Spectator and others, where they ply a comfortable, if somewhat repetitive, trade criticising their former comrades for a Conservative audience. Indeed, in the increasingly precarious industry of journalism there are few more reliable ways to earn a living than by being a former lefty explaining why left-wingers are wrong.
Stewart is in many ways merely the inverse example of this. Yet unlike those former left-wingers there is little evidence that Stewart’s politics have changed in any substantive way. He is just effective at making his long-standing Conservative views sound palatable to an audience that would otherwise be opposed to them.
He is, to his non-Conservative fans, an example of a ‘good’ Conservative. But what is curious to me is that the fact of his Conservatism somehow gives his criticism of Johnson so much more power and legitimacy.
An imperfect alternative example of this can be seen in Prince Charles’ reported opposition to Johnson’s plan to deport refugees to Rwanda. Of all Johnson’s actions as Prime Minister this has been the most despicable, and yet criticism of it from human rights groups, opposition politicians and even the UN has been either ignored, or vilified by the Conservative press.
And yet Charles’ criticisms today get a sympathetic front page treatment by the Daily Mail, which has otherwise been the predominant cheerleader for the scheme.Â
It is of course completely understandable that Charles' views should be front page news. He is our likely next head of state and it is obviously very newsworthy when he seeks to intervene in our politics.
However it can sometimes feel extremely frustrating to live in a country where the only criticism of the government, and wider political establishment, that ever seems to get a substantial hearing is that criticism which arises from within it
That this is true can be seen clearly by looking at what happens when an internal critic breaches the bounds of the establishment they are criticising.
For example were Charles to abdicate, then his criticisms of government policy would no longer carry anywhere near as much weight. Similarly were Rory Stewart to suddenly run to become a Liberal Democrat or Labour MP, then his status as the Conservative non-Conservatives like to listen to would also suddenly disappear.
Much of this is down to the ‘well he would say that wouldn’t he?’ factor. We expect opponents of the government to oppose and supporters of the government to support and so whenever someone does something different, then it becomes novel and newsworthy.
Yet the political culture in the UK often goes far beyond this to the point where the only criticism of the government and wider establishment that is deemed worth taking into account is criticism from within.
The result of this is that the views of opponents, experts, and even the public themselves, are marginalised, right up until the point that those views are repeated by somebody speaking from inside the fence.
It’s worth saying that this is not a criticism of those who do speak from inside that fence. Prince Charles is right about the Rwanda policy just as Stewart is largely right about Johnson.
But a political culture that relies so heavily on outsourcing opposition to the government and wider establishment, to those people who sit within it, is never going to be a healthy one.
This was a free edition of Folded with Adam Bienkov. Please subscribe above to get every edition in your inbox and support independent, progressive journalism.
This is also seen within other UK institutions. For example, there are many documented examples of patients and families raising concerns about poor NHS care which are ignored often for years until an insider raises them. Likewise outsiders’ accounts of their patient experience is largely ignored, whilst patient experience accounts given by insiders, especially doctors, is given great weight, whilst ignoring the fact that because they are insiders, especially when ‘senior’ insiders, their experiences will inevitably be different from that of outsiders.
Agree, but Stewart is also a very good orator who holds people's attention.
I think one reason why non-Conservatives listen and often applaud him is because they like a bit of Boris-bashing and Stewart's utter utter disgust of Johnson is the cherry on the cake..