Like anyone watching the House of Commons in the lead up to and following Boris Johnson’s now-illegal prorogation, I’ve been dismayed at the complete decline of any form of civility emanating from the supposed ‘mother of all Parliaments’. First the Brexit referendum in 2016, and now the rise of Mr Johnson as Prime Minister have marked the sad legitimisation of a divisive, populist rhetoric we thought was used only by a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.”

There’s something, however, far more interesting when one observes the crisis this has caused within the Conservative Party. The ‘nasty party’ is well and truly back – banging on about Europe, borders and bureaucrats.

The dangerously cavalier attitude, the rhetoric employed, and manner of which views have been shared by the Prime Minister and some members of his front bench are mirrored within unionist politics in Northern Ireland – especially those within the DUP and TUV. Boris Johnson’s comments concerning Muslim women, for instance, are eerily similar to the kind of off-hand, prejudiced remarks former First Minister Peter Robinson made not too long ago.

Language battered around in the never-ending Brexit debate, such as talk of ‘no surrender’, is the kind of rhetoric embedded in the history of unionism. The idea of being ‘enslaved’, of losing sovereignty to a power or grouping whose ideology is supposedly at odds with its own, was employed masterfully by Edward Carson in the lead-up to the 1914 Home Rule Bill, and again by the likes of Ian Paisley during the Troubles.

Now, however, both the Tories and DUP face issues of electoral and political legitimacy, largely as a result of such rhetoric. The crisis within unionism, both within Northern Ireland and in the UK as a whole, is something that has been discussed at length in recent years. The DUP’s stances on same-sex marriage, provision for abortion, and Europe have all further alienated not only many of Northern Ireland’s youth but also many within the unionist community who have preferred to bring the ideology into the 21st Century. Much like with the Tories, in recent years those who have attempted to ‘update’ and ‘modernise’ have been greeted with derision and branded as traitorous to ‘the cause’.

We all remember what happened to former UUP leader Mike Nesbitt, for example. In writing this piece, I re-watched his resignation press conference following his party’s rather disappointing performance in the 2017 Assembly elections. It sounds a tad dramatic, a tad cliché, maybe, but you could see the resignation (pun intended) in his eyes. Nesbitt was rightly praised by many in Northern Ireland for his attempt at encouraging cross-community voting, encouraging UUP voters to give second or third preferences to the SDLP ahead of the DUP in the hopes of forming a united opposition and alternative executive-in-waiting. This was one that he and SDLP leader Colum Eastwood hoped would break from the sectarian bickering and power carve-up instituted by Sinn Féin and the DUP.

This same crisis – that of the failure of modernising, bipartisan reformers – is echoed by the current Conservative Party, as well as within other conservative, centre-right parties globally. Rory Stewart’s recent leadership bid comes to mind as a case in point. Stewart galvanised people across the political centre-ground in a way that Cameron did in 2010, appealing to voters who put heads over hearts and sought a compromise over further legislative conflict.

As with Nesbitt, Stewart failed – his leadership bid defined as being too nice, too responsible and, more specifically in Stewart’s case, coming across as too-Remain-y. This latter pejorative is the most amusing for, unlike the current Prime Minister, Stewart voted in favour of Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Bill each of the three times it came before the House of Commons. Now, after rebelling against the party whip in order to stave off the disaster of a no-deal Brexit, he finds himself and his other more moderate colleagues kicked out of the party he served rather diligently and loyally for almost a decade.

Contrary to how some may feel, this isn’t something to celebrate or relish. Whilst I’m neither a conservative nor a unionist, both Northern Ireland and wider UK need sensible, pragmatic voices of both flavours. Yes, it can be amusing to see both the DUP majority shrink and the Tories in complete disarray. But if this continues for too long, the implications for both parties will hardly be ‘peachy’.

For example, when it comes to Irish unity, it’s widely accepted that any form of United Ireland must offer something positive to unionists if it is to succeed, something that Colum Eastwood possibly recognised in agreeing to the cross-community voting pact. Such reciprocation, however, seems to largely absent on the unionist side of the spectrum. The UUP seem to have given up on pursuing a more moderate, liberal course following Nesbitt’s resignation, whilst the DUP seem more than content to support and defend the horrific rhetoric of an ever-more beleaguered and chaotic Prime Minister who wonders why the Irish Taoiseach “isn’t called Murphy like the rest of them.”

Both groups need to recognise and stem this decline in civility. Siding with right-wing populists and engaging in divisive, xenophobic rhetoric rarely works out well for conservative parties of all stripes, whilst unionists need to recognise that many in Northern Ireland, unionist or otherwise, are sick to the teeth of DUP-style rhetoric poisoning attempts at even modest progress on issues like abortion, gay marriage or the Irish language.

Failure to do so may not do the Conservatives and the DUP much immediate electoral damage, but they are charting a course that, at least in my view, ends only in alienation and eventual oblivion.