There are only two types of election campaign, according to the American political strategist Stan Greenberg. One is “it’s time for change” and the other is “don’t risk it with the other guys”. The polls here leave us little doubt about which strategy is triumphing: the erosion of David Cameron’s lead suggests that his time for change message is being progressively eclipsed by Brown’s stick-with-the-devil-you-know approach.
This might seem bizarre, verging on the incomprehensible, in light of the economic catastrophe that has befallen the nation – many in the Government can scarcely believe it themselves – but actually it is a relatively predictable development, compounded by growing confusion over the Opposition’s economic agenda.
Treasury ministers tell me they’ve no doubt what’s causing the Government’s poll revival: “It’s the economy, stupid” (another of Greenberg’s observations about what determines the outcome of elections). So why would an economy as badly damaged as ours be good news for the Government which had presided over the road crash?
The answer is five fold. First and most important, for the vast majority of people this has so far been a relatively painless recession. The Government has protected them from the full force of the contraction with unprecedented quantities of public support which in any other circumstances would have been condemned as the most scandalous pre-election giveaway of all time.
Unemployment has remained relatively subdued, almost incredibly so given the scale of the crisis, while, because of the effect of record low interest rates on mortgage repayments, many families have a higher disposable income than before the downturn.
Disingenuously, the Prime Minister promises that this happy state of affairs can continue. This is the fantasy economics of Neverland, but for the first time since the crisis began, voters seem to believe it. Contrast this with the Conservative message of severe austerity to come and it is not hard to see why people would question the need for change.
Second, the Opposition has played its cards badly. Some might say that the Tories have said too little about what they would do with the economy, and, therefore, cannot be treated seriously as a party of government. In fact, the opposite is the case; if anything, they have said too much, while the message, though imbued with a good deal more realism than the candyfloss of Brown’s rhetoric, is confusing and has little popular appeal.
Two of the three pillars of economic policy outlined by George Osborne in his Mais lecture, those of an Office for Budget Responsibility and making the Bank of England responsible for financial supervision, are only of interest to technocrats; while the third, an unspecified programme of supply-side reform which would allow for fiscal tightening supported by accommodative monetary policy, looks to most people like just one thing – cuts.
The fact that the Government, if it gets back into power, will be forced down much the same road is lost in the cut and thrust of public debate. The last pre-Budget report implied a spending squeeze more serious than anything since the 1930s, with the Government having to undo virtually all the increases in departmental spending since Labour came to power 13 years ago.
The only real diff
By Jeremy Warner Published: 7:27PM GMT 12 Mar 2010
Comments 40 | Comment on this article
There are only two types of election campaign, according to the American political strategist Stan Greenberg. One is “it’s time for change” and the other is “don’t risk it with the other guys”. The polls here leave us little doubt about which strategy is triumphing: the erosion of David Cameron’s lead suggests that his time for change message is being progressively eclipsed by Brown’s stick-with-the-devil-you-know approach.
This might seem bizarre, verging on the incomprehensible, in light of the economic catastrophe that has befallen the nation – many in the Government can scarcely believe it themselves – but actually it is a relatively predictable development, compounded by growing confusion over the Opposition’s economic agenda.
Treasury ministers tell me they’ve no doubt what’s causing the Government’s poll revival: “It’s the economy, stupid” (another of Greenberg’s observations about what determines the outcome of elections). So why would an economy as badly damaged as ours be good news for the Government which had presided over the road crash?
The answer is five fold. First and most important, for the vast majority of people this has so far been a relatively painless recession. The Government has protected them from the full force of the contraction with unprecedented quantities of public support which in any other circumstances would have been condemned as the most scandalous pre-election giveaway of all time.
Unemployment has remained relatively subdued, almost incredibly so given the scale of the crisis, while, because of the effect of record low interest rates on mortgage repayments, many families have a higher disposable income than before the downturn.
Disingenuously, the Prime Minister promises that this happy state of affairs can continue. This is the fantasy economics of Neverland, but for the first time since the crisis began, voters seem to believe it. Contrast this with the Conservative message of severe austerity to come and it is not hard to see why people would question the need for change.
Second, the Opposition has played its cards badly. Some might say that the Tories have said too little about what they would do with the economy, and, therefore, cannot be treated seriously as a party of government. In fact, the opposite is the case; if anything, they have said too much, while the message, though imbued with a good deal more realism than the candyfloss of Brown’s rhetoric, is confusing and has little popular appeal.
Two of the three pillars of economic policy outlined by George Osborne in his Mais lecture, those of an Office for Budget Responsibility and making the Bank of England responsible for financial supervision, are only of interest to technocrats; while the third, an unspecified programme of supply-side reform which would allow for fiscal tightening supported by accommodative monetary policy, looks to most people like just one thing – cuts.
The fact that the Government, if it gets back into power, will be forced down much the same road is lost in the cut and thrust of public debate. The last pre-Budget report implied a spending squeeze more serious than anything since the 1930s, with the Government having to undo virtually all the increases in departmental spending since Labour came to power 13 years ago.
The only real difference between the two main parties on cuts thus becomes that the Tories might be better suited to the role of Grand Old Duke of York than Gordon Brown.
Third, the Opposition has been inconsistent in its economic message. One day it promises tax cuts; the next it concedes that for the time being they are unaffordable, only to change its mind again the day after. The Tory front bench has been equally confused on fiscal consolidation – no wonder their competency is being questioned.
Fourth, the lesson from Tony Blair’s landslide victory in 1997, and from Neil Kinnock’s crushing electoral defeat in 1992, is that oppositions should say as little as possible about what they intend to do with the economy. Instead, they should focus on the incumbent government’s record, which in this case provides ample ammunition. Mr Brown promised no more boom and bust, yet the country is as surely set on the path to ruinous bust as Wilkins Micawber.
Fifth, the old warhorse is always bound, in a crisis, to look a safer bet than the unbroken colt. Brown bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the mess we are in, but his response to the crisis was broadly correct and his mustering of international consensus genuinely impressive. The Opposition’s determination to find fault with this looks too much like the naughty schoolboy sitting in the back row with a peashooter.
In any case, as the election approaches, Gordon Brown finds himself in the scarcely conceivable position of “win win” on the economy. If the economy strengthens, he can say it’s all down to his policies, but if, as seems more likely, it shows continued signs of weakness, he can say it justifies more deficit spending until the recovery is assured.
Comments: 40
I believe Mr Warner's analysis to be spot-on. Whether we care to admit it or not the majority of the British electorate are "politically and economically thick". And as such will easily be taken in by Brown's blatent lies and brazen behaviour (witness his performance at the Chilcot enquiry followed by a PR stunt in Afghanistan). Cameron's Conservatives should be on the inside straight just now and galloping home; just as Blair was in 1997. I, and many other DT readers, are natural Conservatives but I have to say as much a I loathe this Govt, Cameron and his team just don't "do it for me" at times. They should be wiping the floor with this lot. Cameron has many obsticles to overcome in getting his message across, not least a blatently bias BBC. Not because he doesn't get a fair hearing of his policies etc but the BBC have gone easy on Brown, especially when he rants about how he "saved the world" and other such nonsense. If it were a Tory Govt just now the BBC would be relentless in their hounding of the Govt. Think back to the tanking they gave Major's Govt in its last years in office. Although the BBC has reported Cameron in a reasonably positve light (compared to how they did Major, Hague and Howard) settled editorial stance at the BBC is for a left-liberal Govt. Until that changes the Conservatives will struggle to gain power.
What a depressing article, but unfortunately,it has an element of truth about it. But let us, in the words of Monty Python, look on the bright side of life.Perhaps Marxist Brown will win the election, hopefully with a one or two seat overall majority. Then Brown will have to implement the policies necessary to restore the country's finances, while, call me Dave will be swiftly consigned to the dustbin of history and perhaps the tories will get their act together and perform like a proper opposition. One can live in hopes but don't bet on it.
In other words the general electorate is gullible and stupid beyond belief. I suppose this is/was only to be expected given our lousy education system.
"Brown bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the mess we are in, but his response to the crisis was broadly correct and his mustering of international consensus genuinely impressive." Actually he bears responsibility for the World crisis, as loose money in London encouraged Wall St. However the idea his response was 'broadly correct' is laughable in anything but the lobby obsessed Labourograph.
There is, of course, a third camapaign strategy for opposition: 'New Labour are a bunch of bastards'. This is not party political, as Harold Wilson used precisely such tactics to rouse his own party decades ago....... Time for a change is an endorsement of others. They're a bunch of bastards is a judgement in the court of public opinion, saying 'anyone but this lot'. I am of the profound opinion currently that Britain is in a double bind. The message New Labour are a bunch of bastards has great resonance to many, but it doesn't answer the question 'how would you do better?' The difficulty comes when anyone else proposing new solutions immediately sees Brown et al filching their ideas, repackaging them in a Press pack of spin and obfuscation and generally acting like self-satisfied political yobbos. If the Press truly wants change (the only change it wants is the loose change from its readers' pockets), it would run brutal monitoring campaigns to show how Gordon Brown does this. But it doesn't. Perhaps it is because the Tories do the same? After all, I'm sure they learned the arts of electronic bugging at Eton, didn't they, and allusions from smarmy oiks between 2003 - 2005 suggest to me that my PC writings at home were somehow wending their way to Tory HQ, although certainly not through direct email, that is for sure...... And if they didn't, no doubt they outsource such 'dirty tricks' to 'management consultants', don't they?? So there comes a point when no politician who is engaging when growing up politically rises up the greasy pole, so you get airheads twittering on about things incessantly and the country goes slowly to the dogs. Truly it is time to incorporate two more boxes on the electoral slip: 1. None of those listed. 2. All politicians are self-congratulatory windbags (or the like (FOCs might be a suitable acronym)). Only at that point would the electoral result be sufficiently damning for these pathetic stage actors to be brought to heel, their Faustian pact with the media brought to an end and their 'return on taxation' highlighted for what it is. Porcine flying machines, anyone??
There are tough times ahead regardless of who wins. It's just a case of which strategy you support.
Ianw on March 13, 2010 at 08:12 AM Have you ever heard of the Phyrric victory? Your NuLabor mates have not quite completely wrecked the British economy but give them another few months to finish the job. Then your hero and saviour of the world, Gordon Brown, can suffer the ignominy of going to the IMF with his begging bowl. Unfortunately, in this Armageddon scenario, a lot of hard-working, honest taxpaying Brits will suffer enormous hardship together with hordes of your NuLabor-voting moronic mates. At that point, they will express utter surprise and amazement at this disastrous turn of events. That is because NuLabor voters are the only people in Britain who are too stupid not to foresee the inevitable consequences of Gordon Brown's decade of chronic economic mismanagement.
Jermy Warner write about- Painless-Economy of our,and it reads:-Trump Card-For Mr Brown? And- I just wonder; Why trump-card for Mr G Brown? (the PM/of/UK)? If Britain's Economy goes down, then we all Briton's have to cry for, our pounds-and-pennies? We the Tax-payers, are affected& Effected by this Recession?+!+?- and not just PM/or/Leaders of/- Opposition? This is our Country and we're paying through our noses? (the MPs second/homes + other-luxuries they're climatised to, for many years? Untill recently the bookes were opened by good medias? Lord help us all tax-payers,from the scroungers?
Don't be too deferential towards Stan Greenberg. In early 2008, he was very much part of the unsuccessful Hillary Clinton team. Somehow, that team (particularly Stan Greenberg, Mark Penn, Dick Morris) managed to ensure that the almost "inevitable" front-runner lost the Democrat Presidential nomination, to a candidate employing more modern election techniques. Focus Groups, Soccer Moms, Hard-Working Families, Hockey Moms: leave those outdated concepts to Gordon Brown. David Cameron - keep off them too.
The Chancellor, attracti.ng the wrath of his boss, declared it to be the worst recession for 60 years, when for lots of people it was affecting someone else and not them. A good spin Mr.Darling. Lets ignore the polls at the moment as the electorate really are not in the mood to vote for anyone. The EU could still be a decisive topic for the tories which they need to address to stop the professed drain to UKIP.
Surely brown has several trump cards. The just as useless jerks in the other parties.
Read Full Article »