Saturday, February 13, 2010

The darker side of Mr Sunshine

Whenever politicians attack eachother in the run-up to a general election, it is safe to assume that some journalist somewhere will write a story beginning with the words: “The gloves came off in the election battle today as….”

In truth, the gloves are hardly ever on in British politics, such is the extent to which our adversarial system encourages bare-knuckle fighting between the protagonists.

Nevertheless, Tory leader David Cameron’s attack on Premier Gordon Brown over MPs expenses at the start of this week did represent something of a step-change in the pre-election skirmishing.

“Gordon Brown cannot reform the institution because he is the institution. The character of his Government - secretive, power-hoarding, controlling - is his character,” he said.

Such language certainly represents something of a paradigm-shift from the noble aspirations set out in Mr Cameron’s victory speech when he became Tory leader in December 2005.

“I'm fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster, the name calling, backbiting, point scoring, finger pointing,” he said back then.

There was more than an element of calculation in this, given that all recent polling evidence suggests that the public is equally fed-up with Punch and Judy politics, or ‘negative campaigning’ to use the technical term.

Indeed, it has since emerged that an internal report on the Tories’ 2005 election campaign found that personal attacks on Tony Blair had actually done more damage to them than to Labour.

Now what was really interesting about this finding was that it showed that politicians saying what the public is thinking is not necessarily always the way to win elections.

Even before 2005, a growing number of people felt that Mr Blair had taken the country into war with Iraq on a false prospectus – but when the Tories branded him a “liar,” the attacks backfired.

Why was this? Well, partly, it’s because the floating voters who actually decide elections are not always thinking the same way as the wider public – as the Tories also found when they talked about immigration.

The biggest reason, though, is that when opposition politicians resort to negative campaigning, it invariably leads the public to assume they have nothing positive or new to offer.

My own hunch is that Mr Cameron was on the right lines when first took over, and that his subsequent decision to “get personal” is a significant strategic error on his part.

Maybe he thinks Mr Brown is now so unpopular that he can freely insult him in the knowledge that the public agrees with him, but if so, he is confusing what the public thinks with what the public wants.

Mr Brown may well be unpopular – but what people really want to hear about from Mr Cameron is his policies, not what he thinks of his opponent.

If he continues to talk about personalities rather than policies, they will fairly swiftly conclude that it’s because he hasn’t got any.

If there is one single quality the public is looking for in its politicians today, it is authenticity.

Just as Gordon Brown sold himself to us as a “serious man for serious times,” so Mr Cameron sold himself as the man who would put the “sunshine” back into British politics.

But as the Labour blogger Paul Richards put it this week: "When he attacks Gordon Brown’s personality, Cameron no longer sounds like a decent family man. He sounds like a public-school bully, flogging his fags for burning the toast.”

In other words, he can’t suddenly start playing Mr Nasty when he’s sold himself to us as Mr Nice.

free web site hit counter


Robert said...

In the end all the fighting gloves off are all a sham, most people I suspect will sit at home on election day me included, otherwise I'd end up voting for a fringe party.

I'm sick and tired of the big back stabbing, baby crying politics, in which Brown does not mind a few tears, or to let him wife tell us Brown is a loving daddy.

He might well be he is a shit leader.

ascotinlessables said...

Get a life Paul!
Brown and his party are going down, not because of name calling but because Labour have failed to deliver on their program and in the meantime have all but bankrupted the nation. Can you really imagine that the voters want 5 more years of this total shambles? I think not. You should perhaps consider devoting your time to offering some plausible explanations as to why after some 13 years we find ourselves in this predicament. People are less concerned with what Cameron says but what can be done to rid ourselves from this tired and fagged out Labour Administration.

Junius said...

@ascotinlessables - well said

James Higham said...

Even before 2005, a growing number of people felt that Mr Blair had taken the country into war with Iraq on a false prospectus – but when the Tories branded him a “liar,” the attacks backfired.

And now Blair is roundly vilified by all.

Stephen Rouse said...

I suspect Cameron doesn't have much choice. Read any right-wing blog, or The Telegraph, or The Spectator, and they are howling at poor old Dave for a full-blooded Thatcherite programme. Problem is, Dave is economically literate (more so than his shadow chancellor) and knows that can only lead back into recession, if not outright depression. What is needed is a Keynesian stimulus plan on a more agressive basis than the present Government's timid efforts and a complete break with the sado-monetarism of the last 30 years which, even now, is delivering the slowest recovery of the major economies. However, if Dave does that his base will go off to UKIP/BNP in a huff.
It's quite a dilemma. For the moment, Dave will simply fudge on the economy and focus on the one thing his right wing and the floating voter agree on - Gordon has been a disappointment. It will probably win him the election but he could well up as the Conservative Callaghan - aware that the tide of history has turned but prevented from responding by a party too in love with its own past.

isle of man houses said...

I think politicians do not to present a more positive impression Reagan and FDR both seemed to do that.