I helped to launch Change UK – the fiasco that followed holds powerful lessons for Remainers

MPs lament the polarisation of society and the bitterness directed at them. But they are also pretty good at directing it at one another – even when they are on the same side

This week marks six months since I made my way to London’s County Hall to listen to seven MPs announce that they had quit the Labour Party and were forming the Independent Group.

We all know what happened next. What began with such promise has ended in splits and acrimony.

As we are confronted with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, Remainers are seeking to work together across party lines to slam on the brakes. They need to learn the lessons of our six months if they are going to have any chance of mirroring the single-minded purpose of this Vote Leave government.

Rewind back to that February morning and the emotion on display as, one by one, those MPs set out their reasons for leaving Labour, their anger, their hope that things could be different.

Then fast forward two days to Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston leaving the Conservatives; their conviction that that party was now owned by its right wing; that, in Heidi’s words, it had failed to open its eyes “to the suffering endured by the most vulnerable in society”.

At least in this regard, it’s difficult to argue that anything has changed. Labour remains captured by its left wing; the Tories have moved even further into the arms of their right. There is still a vast gap in the centre where the politically homeless are gathered. The essential problem which gave rise to “TIG” exists now more than ever.

So, if the founding of TIG was right, what went wrong?

As much as I hate to disagree with Anna Soubry and sympathise with her hurt, it wasn’t that Chuka Umunna “failed to step up” and lead (my view is that, as the group’s spokesperson, he put himself forward while giving space to others, and he worked hard to bridge divides within the group).

I believe that the real answer is twofold: first, there were external circumstances which denied the group its initial raison d’etre, wounding it badly; second there were internal clashes which made it impossible to heal those wounds and carry on.

Take the external first. When we founded TIG, we had a plan. Over the course of 2019, we would build out the group from its embryonic form as a parliamentary caucus. We would launch a policy review, stage interventions on issues such as social care and housing, build out our staff – and launch as a fully fledged political party around conference season.

As so often, Brexit intervened. The failure to leave on 29 March necessitated European elections – and the decision was taken effectively to concertina the entire plan for the year into the space of a few weeks, and for the group to stand candidates. TIG became Change UK.

It was a huge gamble: one which didn’t pay off. Despite heroic efforts, Change was trying to run before it had even learnt to crawl. The result of zero seats was not what the candidates, MPs, staff or voters deserved.

That’s democracy. Sometimes you need a little luck, and you don’t get it. But it did mean that, having been founded partially in protest at Brexit, the party had failed to establish itself as the natural home for those who backed Remain.

It may have been able to weather this if it had been internally robust. Sadly, by this point, private tensions had split the group in two.

When TIG was founded, there was a great deal of focus on culture. The MPs wanted to leave behind intolerance and operate in a deliberative, collaborative way. They drew up a statement of independence which put this front and centre, saying: “We recognise that every member of our group has the right to be heard and a duty to lead. We commit to support each other and treat each other with respect.”

Months later, it was hard to agree that that was the case. Decisions were made by a small group in a way which discouraged outside input.

Although some of this was about personalities, in my view it was really about different views of political power and how it should be wielded. Some view power as a finite thing – a limited quantity which, if somebody else has it, creates a problem. Then there are those who are comfortable with everyone having “the right to be heard and the duty to lead”; who are prepared to compromise and sacrifice in order to move forward.

Fighting the European elections elevated and exposed this division. To be fair, there were frustrations on both sides; some simply wanted to get on with fighting the Brexit Party, and found that this was made more difficult by decisions such as the call from some – in the final week of the campaign – for Change UK to tell its voters to back the Lib Dems.

The debate within the group became so toxic that, when it reconvened to talk about what should happen next, it became impossible to bridge the gap between those who wanted to take the result as a good first step and continue, and those who wanted to deregister as a party and build a form of “centrist Momentum” which would drive support for Remainers like the Lib Dems. Unable to find agreement and with bonds of trust broken, the group could not survive.

What should Remainers learn from this? First, there is a lesson about power. With such a loose coalition of opposition parties, if they are to stop no deal, nobody is going to get everything they want.

We’ve seen a little of this with the letter from Jeremy Corbyn to opposition parties this week, asking them to support him as prime minister, which the Lib Dems thus far have rejected outright. I have every sympathy – but it may be that there is another solution; and the Lib Dems have a duty at least to talk.

Second, there’s a lesson about civility. Politics is a team sport. Politicians should look to build bridges with one another, not blow them up. Too much of the past few years has seen everybody ready to see the worst in one another; to accentuate differences, rather than focus on the things we hold in common.

MPs often lament the polarisation of our society and the bitterness directed at them. They are right to do so, but they are also pretty good at directing it at one another – even when they are on the same side. If Remainers now want to show the same unity of purpose as the Brexiteers, they should take a look back at the motivation behind TIG… and do as we said, not as we did.

Rob Newman is a former Labour political adviser and senior staff member of the Independent Group for Change