The Tories' negative brand of politics

Mark Stockwell

Without doing a trawl through the archives, I'm fairly sure you (or someone else) has put this same post up here before with only a few words changed here and there. And re-posting it doesn't alter the fact that what you're saying just ain't so. It's not very sensible to try and analogise with 1997 in any case, but if you look back to Labour pre-1997, they were actually fairly light on policy - and they were right to be so. You don't win elections by conducting policy debates. Come to think of it, you don't even win policy debates by conducting policy debates. You have to shape the terms of reference, the political terms of trade. And you do that through narrative, narrative, narrative. that means associating yourself with values and principles rather than policies, and yes, it also means attacking the other side and trying to highlight their weaknesses - again on a values/principles level, not on detailed policy.

Pete Hoskin

Mark: I can assure you that this isn’t a rehash of any older post. I’m at a bit of a disadvantage on this front as I’ve only been working at the Spectator for about ten days, so I don’t yet have a perfect memory of what has-and-hasn’t been said on Coffee House before. In this case, I thought the Kavanagh article was worth highlighting and I figured I’d add a bit of commentary – if it echoes earlier Coffee House sentiments then it’s purely by accident.

michael m

Blair/Brown for 3 years before the 1997 election continually blasted Major with sets of soundbites- the 22 tax rises being one we all remember. I do not know why we do not get the same sort of hammering now from the Conservative front bench- we never hear David Davis for instance and there has been plenty in his portfolio. Ted K is right- the Tories have got to keep punching hard and getting on the media as often as possible to do this- if you keep the drip feed going long enough, people then remember what you are saying and then will listen to you Ken Clarke is wrong when he criticises the use of sound bites. The Conservative Front Bench to a man/woman must show their heads above the parapet- why are they so scared of this Government? They will never have a better opportunity to sink Brown and his lightweight crew once and for all. To rely upon events to finish them off is not the answer.

Simon

It might not be a rehash but we've heard it all before I am afraid. The classic line for me was "as Blair demostrated in 1997" I dont know if you were around in those days but if you ask anyone who was they will confirm that Blair's victory was preceded by years of negative attacks on the Tories. Ruthlessly exploiting every local difficulty which individual Tory MPs got into. Directly and through media supporters. That combined with cleaver repositioning won the day big time. There was no policy detail before or during the campaign. If Dave ever made the mistake of taking the advice of the various teenage scribblers on here he would have revealed the Conservative manifetso about ten times by now - years before the election. Does it ever occur that politics and life are not quiet as simple as it seems. Do you really think that Dave has never bothered to think these thing through? I've no doubt he goes over this in his mind everyday of his life.

Pete Hoskin

Mark, Michael & Simon - you're all right that Blair/Brown made some pretty vicious attacks on the Major government pre-1997. My comments don't preclude that fact. What I write is that this negative politics is "not enough" by itself. Blair was careful to set the political agenda. Not only was there the makeover of the Labour party itself (into New Labour); but the Blairite idea of marrying free markets and social justice was introduced, remaining one of the key goals of politics up to this day; and then his party lead the debates in numerous policy areas, particularly education. Whilst Cameron's Tories have lead the way in some areas - especially welfare and the environment - I think it's a massive strategic mistake to put their foot of the pedal, especially given the torrid time that the Brown Government's having at the mo'. Since the Tories aren't doing staggeringly well in the polls, do you not think it might be because they've come across as little more than the spiteful party over the past few weeks?

Tiberius

A very good post, Simon, although I think "teenage scribblers" is a bit harsh. I would wager your surname is not Heffer.

Oscar Miller

I agree there is a strong sense of deja vue on this one. And here I go again with my Groundhog Day comment. This is NOT the 1990s. In the nineties the Conservatives might have been in power but the general culture was extremely favourable to Labour. The liberal institutions loathed Thatcher with a vengeance and socrnred Major and there was a general sense in some very influential sectors that the Tories had to be overthrown. The media was ready and willing to be on board with the labour project even without the machinations of Mandelson, Campbell and Whelan. It was fashionable to support Labour and deeply uncool to be a Tory. The BBC was central to this. In the last fifteen years Labour has built up a client state. Tory has become a dirty word. The Conservatives are now operating in an extremely hostile environment, with a much depleted power base and with the MSM across the political spectrum (who Brown has courted obsessively) pushing Brown and dissing Dave. (It's worth noting for instance that as early as 2002 Paul Dacre was so close to Brown that he was invited to the funeral of Jennifer Brown - a fact that even Alistair Campbell - the source for this information - found a bit hard to swallow). The Conservatives last year triumphed against all the odds. But now they are up against a very fiercely fought and well supported resucitation of "that strange man in Downing Street". Meanwhile Dave gets hammered whatever he does. If he comes up with a clever soundbite at PMQs he gets slated. If he comes up with policy the MSM do their best to bury it or neutralise it.(When's the last time the Today programme properly covered the Conservative agenda?). It's like watching a guy get up and fight back only to be knocked down again by digging articles like this, often from the right of centre, from people who then gloat - now why aren't you doing better sonny? Gordon Brown is inept and useless but he has some very very powerful friends across the political class who are determined to keep him in power and keep Dave out.

TGF UKIP

Michael M you are right and Simon you are also right - until about half way through your post. Pre 97 Blair/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell not only battered the Tories they poisoned the very name "Tory" for years to come. Yes, they had a largely favourable media but they worked bloody hard, paid lavish attention to detail and conducted their campaign with great professionalism and discipline. And they succeeded - by 1st May 1997 the Tory Government was smashed as no other government has been smashed by an opposition. As it happens the Major Government was not as incompetent nor as useless and sleazy as this one but unfortunately we've now got the worst government faced by the worst most powder puff opposition of modern times. Hence the 37-35% poll

Herbert Thornton

Looking at this topic from the far west of North America, it occurs to me that David Cameron's Tories could learn much from the current American Democratic Party rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The impression that Americans are getting is that election of Obama will bring a genuine change from the old ways of America's governing establishment in Washington, whereas the election of Hillary Clinton will bring a repeat of the old and the outdated.

Is that not what is wrong with the Tories under Cameron? Unlike Obama, they offer nothing much new. People have difficulty believing that they are really much different from NuLabour.

The country is deeply dissatisfied with two main things - immigration, and the transfer of the county's sovereignty to the E.U. Yet - although both UKIP and the BNP advocate dealing with them, the country cannot bring itself to support them.

Why cannot the Tories understand that a Clintonesque policy of supporting the status quo simply has no appeal? If they had the courage and vision to abandon the old, outdated, politically correct policies of tolerating both illegal and undesirable immigration and supinely submitting to government by the E.U., and if they could convince voters that they intended to bring both those two evils to a speedy end, people would forget about both UKIP and the BNP - and the Tories would certainly be elected to government. They could even be swept to power on a tsunami of votes.

But is Cameron the man for the job?

Nicholas Millman

Oscar Miller sums it up very well.

Tiberius

Oscar does sum it up very well, but Herbert, there are some major differences in outlook between the British electorate and the US voters. For example, the class war still lurks in the background and is very alive in Brown's mind, while the influence of the devolved Scottish vote is hugely disproportionate in its major effect on seats in Westminster.

Herbert Thornton

Tiberius - I don't doubt the factors you mention are hugely important, but I don't understand why they should prevent Cameron's Tories from taking a vigorously different and determined position on immigration and the E.U.

If the electorate feel their choice is between foolish government policies run by people like themselves - i.e. NuLabour - and virtually identical policies run by toffs - i.e. Cameron's Tories - why choose the toffs - indeed why bother to vote at all? So far as we can tell, Camerons Tories offer virtually nothing new, and Cameron's policy statements are mostly vague and non-committal. I think that Cameron's Tories present themselves in a way that invites electoral defeat.