Read on Twitter
Quite often see people on the TL talking about leaving the Labour Party & trying to build something new. A lot of the time they glumly conclude that (under the current electoral system) a splinter party would be doomed to get nowhere. But is that really true? Well, I wonder
I can't help imagining the same conversations happening among the eurosceptic Tory right in the 1990s
The stayers & fighters might have said: "If Britain ever does leave the EU, it's going to be a Conservative prime minister who takes us out—probably a Conservative prime minister with a big parliamentary majority." And they'd have been right: that is exactly how it happened
They might have said: "Even if your breakaway party does get some votes, the electoral system means it won't be able to turn them into seats." And they'd have been right: in 2015, when UKIP did best, it got more than 12% of the vote but still only 1 seat
They might have said: "And splitting the vote risks handing power to parties that are even more europhile than John Major." And they'd have been right: you can make a plausible case that UKIP cost the Tories (or maybe Tories+DUP) a majority in 2010—putting Lib Dems in the cabinet
And yet
Does anyone think that Britain would have left the EU _earlier_ if UKIP had never existed? Does anyone think it would have left at all?
As it turns out, the existence of a separate eurosceptic party didn't weaken those Tories who chose to stay & fight: it enormously strengthened them. _Even if your strategy for euroscepticism was based entirely on getting a Tory govt_, UKIP was working for you not against you
But of course you can't change anything in opposition, you need to be in government to make a difference, it's a two-party system, blah. Someone should have told young Nigel
