So, we have a coalition government in Britain and the press and the broadcast media are wriggling with pundits, all telling us just what happened and why. Of course, it’s easy enough to be wise after the event. But these are the same pundits who, after the first TV debate, were so wild-eyed and feverish with Cleggmania. The Lib Dems, they told us , were on the verge of displacing Labour as the main opposition. They might even out-poll the Tories. In this, of course, they were aided and abetted by a gaggle of pollsters who understand everything about statistics, and nothing about people.
They should have read the Chelgate Blog. This is what we wrote on April 19th, when Cleggmania was raging unchecked across the land:
So, now some opinion polls actually have the Lib Dems in the lead! So what does this mean for British politics? Have the Libs “gone viral”? Should we be preparing ourselves for the reign of King Clegg?
Um. No.
Of course we are in the world of “Anything’s possible” now. And only an idiot will speak in absolutes. But the fact is, this is not a presidential election. Immediately after the debate, people felt inclined to give their vote to that nice Nick Clegg. And yes, they have a soft spot for Vince Cable, who could make a perfect Joe Biden to Clegg’s Obama. But that’s not the way our political system works. When it comes to the actual election day and they realise that Nick Clegg is not standing in their constituency, and their man (or woman) is still there in a distant third place, then reluctantly, bitterly, as they have before, they’ll shift their vote to whichever they dislike least of Labour and Tory , to keep the other one out.
Tag Archives: general election
The Bigotgate Blunder
Gordon Brown’s “bigotgate” blunder yesterday was a PR mistake in another way, too.
Modern political PR operators have lost their nerve. They have become control freaks, obsessed with managing away every hint of risk from their candidates’ daily schedules. ”Ordinary” members of the public are wheeled up, carefully selected for their doglike devotion to Party and Candidate. They receive their pat on the head, they wag their tails and off they go.
The Prime Minister’s reaction yesterday when he found himself actually talking to a real member of the public (albeit a lifelong supporter of his Party) was as interesting as it was startling. The fact is that his discussion with Gillian Duffy had been far from the “disaster” that he thought. Yes, she had raised a list of concerns. But he had answered well, listening courteously, talking kindly and with sympathy, and setting out his case with effective clarity. He had looked good. Mrs Duffy’s gentle challenges provided him with hugely more opportunity to express himself than a dozen hand picked sycophants would ever have done.
But so sheltered has he become from the realities of real voter contact that this brief exchange felt to him like a “disaster”. He was wrong. And his minders were wrong, just as most political minders are wrong. They need courage. They need to believe in themselves. Great politicians are risk takers. Successful risk takers. And that’s how they rise above the crowd. No half-decent politician should ever be afraid of contact with the public. This is their real chance to perform. It was only when the “grey man” of British politics, John Major, dragged out his soap box and stood on street corners taking on all comers that he was able to turn around an unwinnable election. This election’s so tight, a well-judged throw of the dice might just change history. But I’m not sure modern politicians have the guts or the instinct for that kind of risk taking. Sometimes, though, if you try too hard not to lose, you can forget how to win.
Terence Fane-Saunders
How to counter Clegg
God, what a wonderfully gripping election campaign this has become. Even before the Leaders’ debates, it was full of fascination and intrigue . For once we actually had real policy differences . Should there be a National Insurance hike? Should we delay the budget cuts? And, as if selected by Central Casting, we had two party leaders who could hardly have seemed less alike. The glowering, fearsome bull and the smooth, twinkle toed matador. But, on this occasion there was real uncertainty over whose blood would be soaking the sand of the Plaza de Toros when the bullfight was done. We were all pulling the blankets up to our chins and settling down to enjoy the spectacle.
Then the Clegg bombshell. Well, perhaps not a bombshell in terms of surprise, (and I speak with the smug and irritating tone of a man who took full advantage of the bookies’ generous offering of 9/4 to back Nick Clegg in the first debate). It was always going to happen. Opinion poll after opinion poll in recent months has told us what any thinking person already knew. The public are fed up with the political establishment, sickened by what they see as its arrogance, greed, incompetence and, often, sheer petty nastiness. They wanted Clegg to win. Rightly or wrongly, they don’t see Clegg and his party as part of that world of sleaze and dishonesty. He could have stood on one leg reciting Eskimo Nell and half the people polled would have put their tick in his box. In fact, he performed smoothly and capably, avoiding obvious pitfalls and happily allowing his two opponents to set about the business of making each other look bad. (In fact, the Prime Minister needed little help. I have praised the Labour spinners in the past. But whoever told their Leader to turn aggressivc in the debates simply doesn’t understand what the country wants to see. Britain is now Love Actually Land. We don’t do nasty).
So, now some opinion polls actually have the Lib Dems in the lead! So what does this mean for British politics? Have the Libs “gone viral”? Should we be preparing ourselves for the reign of King Clegg?
Um. No.
Of course we are in the world of “Anything’s possible” now. And only an idiot will speak in absolutes. But the fact is, this is not a presidential election. Immediately after the debate, people felt inclined to give their vote to that nice Nick Clegg. And yes, they have a soft spot for Vince Cable, who could make a perfect Joe Biden to Clegg’s Obama. But that’s not the way our political system works. When it comes to the actual election day and they realise that Nick Clegg is not standing in their constituency, and their man (or woman) is still there in a distant third place, then reluctantly, bitterly, as they have before, they’ll shift their vote to whichever they dislike least of Labour and Tory, to keep the other one out.
Not everywhere, of course. And I do expect to see a storming improvement in the Lib Dem vote, and in their number of seats. But we are still , I believe, a long way from a Lib Dem government. And, I rather think that this improvement in their position will come mostly at the expense of Labour, splitting the anti Tory vote, though that advantage will be fairly marginal.
But what’s to be done? how can the “big two” resist the Lib Dem surge? How can they counter Clegg?
First, they must resist the temptation to “go after” Clegg. The public doesn’t want that. The polls immediately after the first debate showed that Gordon Brown lost votes every time he went on the attack. The Labour leader doesn’t need to convince anyone that he can be harsh, negative, aggressive, angry . In fact, it’s because they believe he’s so many of these things that great swathes of the British public have turned against him. Kicking Clegg is like kicking kittens. Don’t do it Gordon. It won’t look good.
Labour have to be careful about playing the “experience” card against the Lib Dems, too. When I first met Vince Cable it was at one of our Chelgate client dinners. He was there not as a politicians, but as one of the most able minds in the whole of Shell. His experience in business and the true realities of real-life economics would look pretty impressive matched up against almost any of the professional politicians on the front benches of the other two parties. If they want to talk of real experience, he can say, he has it. But, in truth, do they?
David Cameron has to be equally careful. His image constantly teeters on the brink of being “Bully of the Upper Sixth”. Perhaps Flashman’s best friend. You might imagine him reaching almost too enthusiastically for the cane: “Bend over you nasty little socialist”. As with most political caricatures, neither fair nor accurate , but successfully sketched onto the public consciousness by Labour’s able band of spinners. In some Tory circles there has been a knee-jerk reaction. They want to attack. They want to vent. They want to tell the world just what’s wrong with Clegg and his gang. But that’s carminative thinking. It may relieve pent up feelings. But it will do more damage to David Cameron than to Nick Clegg. Really, in politics, you mustn’t kick kittens.
That’s not to say that Cameron shouldn’t use anger, though. He does it rather well. And in the first debate he seemed disappointingly muted and muzzled. But that anger needs to be directed at injustice, deprivation, suffering. It’s still fine to slay dragons in this country. But not kittens.
So , if they can’t attack. what can they do? Certainly not try to smother Clegg with love. Gordon Brown’s overtures during the first debate really sounded a little weak and a little desperate. I’m told that “I agree with Nick” T-shirts were on sale on-line within minutes of the debate ending.
What Labour and Tories need now is what we call a “Third Voice” strategy. In any polarised debate, the most effective interventions are provided by “third voices”. That is, by third parties who are seen (often wrongly) as independent, or (equally often wrongly) particularly expert in some way. People discount the claims and counter claims of the principal protagonists. “They would say that, wouldn’t they”. So, they are swayed by third voices, whether they are footballers or university professors, pop stars or newspaper editors.
Labour and Conservatives now need to unleash their “third voice” hunting dogs. They must leave it to their hounds to rip the prey apart while the huntsmen stand back with clean hands and faintly shocked expressions. We have already seen the “Third Voice” strategy being deployed in this campaign with the battle of economists. Now it will need to intensify.
The most obvious third voice for either party will be the media who support them. The Sun must look up from savaging Labour at least long enough to chew the life out of the Lib Dems and their policies. The Mirror too must tell its readers about Calamity Clegg and what he would mean to good Labour-voting folk. The same goes for the rest of the Labour or Tory supporting media. They can do what Tory and Labour cannot do, must not be seen to do. They can rip that nice Mr Clegg apart.
It’s time for Gordon and David to unleash the hounds.
Terence Fane-Saunders
The Election “a gripping spectacle”
This British election looks like providing a gripping spectacle for anyone in our business. We’re still in the “phoney war” stages, with no election date declared, but the politicians are already in hand-to-hand combat.
There’s no doubt that in these early stages, Labour have comprehensively out-manoevred and out-gunned the Tories, and I have a feeling Peter Mandelson may deserve the credit for that. The Tory communications strategy has certainly looked naive at times, leaden-footed and quite simply, not very bright in comparison.
But, let’s be clear here. I’m not talking about who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m not talking about the honesty or competence of the front bench teams. I’m talking about the ruthless, cynical world of election campaigns. And in that world, good guys don’t always finish first.
One of the most obvious areas of improvement for Labour has been in Prime Minister’s Questions. For month after month, David Cameron had danced around Gordon Brown like a matador addressing a tired and bad tempered old bull. But then, suddenly, it all changed. The strategy was quite simple, really. The Prime Minister stopped answering questions . Instead , he responded to almost every question from the Opposition leader with a crisp and effective sneer at the Tory Party. No matter that it had been cooked up earlier. No matter if it had little or nothing to do with the question. It made an excellent soundbite, and moved the debate from Government failures to Tory inadequacies. His backbenchers loved it. Radio loved it. The headline writers loved it. Suddenly the old slugger was punching again.
Of course the Tories have been unlucky with the timing of the election, as recession gloom has slowly shifted to hesitant hope. But here again, the Labour Party have played the more cunning hand. “There will be pain”, they have told us, jaws jutting and teeth clenching in an honest, manly way. “But don’t worry. It won’t be just yet”. The Tories, meanwhile, have offered pain and suffering the moment they come to power. So, which do the public prefer? It doesn’t take a genius to anticipate that one. The Ipos-Mori poll shows that 57% of people say that cuts now will damage the recovery. Only 30% are wanting immediate action. And given the precarious state of our economy, it really is hard to see the Tories winning public support when their economic strategy is so at odds with the public mood.
The Ashcroft nonsense has also been a triumph for the Labour spinners. Of course the Tories should have seen this coming a long way back, and lanced this particular boil before it was left to poison their election campaign. But the real triumph has been in the Labour spin. We’re not actually talking of an illegal act here. Nor even real corruption. In fact, his offshore status is not so different from Labour’s Lord Paul. And shiftiness over his tax status should surely pale into insignificance compared with the current ghastly Lobbygate squalor. But Labour have been very smart, making reference after reference to Lord Ashcroft while very seldom spelling out the specific offence alleged. Gradually, the power of repetition has started to bite. Nuance, hint and implication have been more than enough. If you stopped the average British voter in the street, and asked him or her what Lord Ashcroft had actually done wrong, the great majority would have no real idea . But they would be clear in their minds that it was probably corrupt, possibly illegal and stinks to high heaven. That’s truly an astonishingly brilliant piece of “black” spin. Through repetition and innuendo, Labour have turned the Ashcroft name into a potent protective mantra, to be chanted with proper fervour any time Labour sleaze is raised. And boy does it work.
The budget made great theatre, too. Darling’s plodding, steady delivery was probably perfect for a Government whose election message, clearly is “always keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse”. And nurse doesn’t scare you with talk of nasty things. For television viewers, though, the sight of the Prime Minister just behind the Chancellor’s shoulder, scowling, grimacing and leering in such a startling fashion might have been quite a distraction. The PM’s facial expressions might be the next fearsome mountain for the good Lord Mandelson to conquer.
Cameron was all fire, energy and aggression, with a good stock of one-liners, more than one of which appeared to be truly spontaneous. Clearly he wanted to send the message of Tory energy versus Labour exhaustion. But it did seem a little unremitting. The tone never shifting. By the end of his onslaught, the viewer/ listener probably felt as exhausted as the PM looked. I’d vote it a score draw. Say, three all. Or , just possibly the Tories shaded it in extra time, with help from the Lib Dems.
So where from here? The Tory lead is in steep decline. One poll has it as low as 2% which puts us into Labour victory territory. And if you extrapolate the recent trend, you’d actually be inclined to put your money on Labour.
But all is not lost for the Tories. We’re still not into serious campaign mode, and once that starts, the media really come into play. And here the Tories have a serious advantage. Look at the players on each team. The Telegraph for the Tories has a circulation of almost 700 thousand. Labour can expect support from the Guardian and the Independent, but together their circulations don’t break the half million mark. But it looks like the Times (just over half a million) will be backing the Cameron camp, too. So, among the “heavies” the Tories will have a marked advantage, even if the BBC tends slightly to favour any Government in power. But when you look at the mass market media, the imbalance is even more marked. For the middle market, the Tories have the Mail (well over two million) and the Express (almost 800,000). Labour have nothing. Gordon Brown can certainly look to the Mirror (just over 1.2 million) and the Star (800,000 plus) for support. But on the other side, there’s the might of the Sun (almost 3 million circulation) comfortably outstripping the Mirror and Star put together.
As the campaign gathers pace, the these papers (and their Sunday stablemates) are going to move into campaigning mode, and this really will be a huge advantage for the Tories. But don’t under-rate the Labour spinners. If they continue to outperform the Tories over the coming weeks, they’ll negate a lot of that media advantage. We could be in for a photo finish.
Terence Fane-Saunders