This August has been the serious season. Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, Isis, Syria have all reminded us of the perils of an unstable world, while domestic extremism and child abuse have forced us to think about what sort of society we are.

These issues have darkened the summer, and as these are subjects that don’t respect party boundaries or offer clear advantage, the political response has been muted and cautious, perhaps leaving parties hungering to engage in the fights they feel most comfortable with – jobs and taxes, spending and cuts, schools, hospitals and houses. Tories and Labour, Lib Dem and Ukip.

It might feel an unexpected relief, then, to be presented with a political event so clear and well lit that it turns eyes away from the shadowy corners we have been forced to examine this summer and instead focuses on a single, bright, certain event. Douglas Carswell’s decision to defect to Ukip and cause a by-election fits with this urge: a political move that is unusual but entirely comprehensible and which is appears to be all about party politics – a nightmare for the Tory leadership, a possible triumph for Ukip, and an unexpected fillip for the Labour party.

After all, what is Carswell’s defection? A maverick, thoughtful MP, with a passionate interest in the European Union and democratic accountability defects to a party, whose stated aim is to leave the EU and whose self-image is of a party holding an out-of-touch elite to account for their failures and complacency.

This anti-establishmentism, European and domestic, is a problem for David Cameron most of all. The prime minister is the personification of the complacent elite, a man whose purpose in life is appears to simply be prime minister, to look prime ministerial and to remain in No 10.

Worse, this desire to remain in office leads Cameron to make concessions to his ideologues for which he gets no credit in return.

Consider: Cameron has marginalised his standing in Europe to please his Eurosceptic members. He has used his veto. He has promised a referendum on EU membership. Yet his internal opponents demand more. Carswell is leaving, in part, because he fear that Cameron may have the temerity to argue that a deal he hopes to secure would be good for Britain. Why such ever-increasing demand? Because they know he is merely paying the danegeld he feels he must, which neither gets rid of the Danes nor reduces the demand for the geld.

No wonder then that a Carswell, a signpost of a man, his causes and issues emblazoned a foot high, has found Cameron’s retreat impossible. On Europe, Cameron has retreated so far that to push further and to remain in the Tory party makes no sense. So Carswell chose to leave, in order to push him to a further retreat.

Of course, we want to see Cameron stagger, and we want to beat him at the next election.

The chance of his humiliation at Clacton is great, so it would be impossible not to smile at it, hoping that Labour might gain from his travails, but there is a worry there too. Cameron is the whipping boy now, but this mood of distrust, this hunger for populism, this appeal of the simple and the clear are not confined to the right.

Like our global problems, they cut across party lines.

The question might be is our response to the demand for certainty in a complex fractious world any greater than Cameron’s? Is our critique of distrusted institutions any more effective than Cameron’s? Do people trust us, more than they trust Cameron? If we say yes, do we expect the discontents of England to float to us, not Ukip?

If we suspect the answer is no, then how do we build the trust with the electorate we will need to guide the country through the dark issues we have spent the summer nervously contemplating?

———————————

Hopi Sen is a Labour blogger who writes here, is a contributing editor to Progress, and writes a fortnightly column for ProgressOnline here