And so begins the last full week of campaigning before the General Election. For political junkies, it has undeniably been a fascinating battle so far, with the phenomenal rise of the Liberal Democrats – or perhaps more accurately, of Nick Clegg personally – capturing the imagination of the media.
There has apparently also been a great public interest in this ‘Cleggmania’, with one Facebook group, aiming to recreate the success of Rage against the Machine by propelling the Lib Dems into government, already attracting well over 150,000 members.
This is not necessarily a reflection of the country at large, though. Walking around Durham, signs of an impending election are conspicuous by their absence.
There is a smattering of posters backing the Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates, as well as a couple supporting the Conservative outsider and even one for the BNP. But the streets are hardly awash with indications of party support, in spite of the fact that this is a key marginal.
The media has assumed that since the leaders’ debates began, the level of public interest in the election has rocketed. It is true that this is the case to a certain extent, with fairly high viewing figures of around ten million for the first debate. The second, however, attracted just one tenth of the electorate, a figure so low that it cannot be entirely pinned on the fact that it was not broadcast live on terrestrial television.
Undoubtedly, the debates have sparked some interest in the campaign. However, paradoxically they appear to have taken the focus off issues of policy. Clegg’s strong showing, which has lifted his party into second place nationally ahead of Labour, has raised the strong possibility of a hung parliament, now the most likely result, according to bookmakers.
As such, the news has been led by speculation as to what might happen should there be a hung parliament. Most of Monday’s newspapers’ lead stories recount the parties’ positioning on these matters.
The Conservatives, who for long periods of the last five years looked to be able to start preparing for a majority government (including some polls suggesting a victory equivalent even to Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide win), have had to adjust their message particularly dramatically.
Their slogan, advocating people to ‘Vote for Change’, has been adopted by Clegg, who has called for a completely fresh break from the ways of the “two old parties”. In response, the Tories have tried to convey a ‘Vote Yellow, Get Brown’ message, and have insisted that elements within coalition governments, by their very nature, would bicker and have self-interests at heart – at a time in which tough decisions need to be made.
Labour has an even greater problem, with their current third place under little doubt. Although this does not preclude them from picking up the most seats, Clegg was fairly unequivocal last weekend that he would not prop up Gordon Brown if Labour finished third in the popular vote.
Labour, predictably, have seized on such comments, with the typically articulate Lord Mandelson warning voters that if they were to “flirt” with Clegg, they could end up “married to Dave and George [Osborne]”.
The Lib Dems, by contrast, must be enjoying their elevated status. It is unlikely to last, however. In all probability, the aftermath of the election will result in Clegg having to choose one of either Brown or Cameron to go into coalition with.
This could be a potentially damaging time for the party, with the options of backing Brown, whose party will most likely finish no higher than second in share of the vote, or choosing Cameron. Entering a coalition with the second-place party would surely conflict with the Lib Dem commitments to a fair voting system, while the latter option could split his party, two-thirds of which is more closely aligned with Labour than with the Tories.
It is only nine days until polling day, and postal ballots have already landed on doormats. Yet the parties are continuing to play a complicated game, asking supporters of other parties to vote tactically, warning that a vote for Clegg is a vote for Cameron (according to Labour) or a vote for Brown (according to the Conservatives).
The Lib Dems, for their part, have attempted to overcome such perceptions, insisting that they will not sacrifice their principles if or when they enter a coalition.
The electorate may be fed up of such politicking. But for most political anoraks, speculation over such scenarios has further fuelled interest in this, the most exciting and unpredictable election for generations.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Saturday, 17 April 2010
The rise (and rise?) of the Lib Dems
This time last year the polls were fairly steady. One, the fieldwork of which ended on 18th April 2009, gave the Conservatives 45 percent, nineteen points ahead of Labour with the Liberal Democrats a further nine points back.
What a difference a year makes. 52 weeks is an eternity in politics. In nine of the last ten polls published, the Lib Dems have surged into at least second place, even leading in two, ending a sustained period of Conservative domination in which the Tories led in well over 300 consecutive polls.
Who would have thought it? (And who would have thought that this surge – a term the media seems to have collectively branded it, which seems an understatement – would be pushed from the top of the news bulletins by a non-fatal Icelandic volcano – admittedly rather an inconvenient one.)
It is an astounding turn of events. The polls suggest that the Lib Dems have doubled their vote in a matter of days, apparently thanks to the strong showing of Nick Clegg in the first Prime Ministerial debate last Thursday, which has been covered in detail elsewhere on this site.
It is barely believable that 90 minutes of admittedly engrossing primetime entertainment have put such a radically different complexion on British politics. This phenomenon is particularly curious considering that less than a quarter of the electorate actually tuned in, which comprised barely one third of people who were watching television at that time.
It was the creation of a media narrative which provided the greatest lift for the Lib Dems. At times, this has bordered on the ridiculous. One Sunday newspaper declared that Nick Clegg is the most popular politician since Winston Churchill, and this was symptomatic of a hyperbolic reaction from the public.
On Monday, Boris Johnson, in a typically non-politically correct article, compared so-called Cleggmania to the reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.
The reaction should not be dismissed, though. Indeed, with barely a fortnight to go before the electorate trudges to the polling booths, it cannot be dismissed. A hung parliament has suddenly rocketed into being bookmakers’ ‘favourite’ status.
It is equally astonishing that Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been forced to attack Lib Dem policies, particularly their pledge not to renew the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons, their support for the single European currency and their “unrealistic” tax-cutting promises.
The problems for the Tories and Labour – who can no longer be referred to accurately as the ‘two main parties’ – is that Clegg’s party has picked up support from them both.
From the Tories, this consists of anti-Labour ‘change’ voters who might have been uneasy backing the party still associated with Margaret Thatcher. From Labour, the party has attracted left-wingers who find Clegg and his team far more appealing than the recently-dissolved administration.
It is anyone’s guess as to whether the Lib Dems can sustain their bounce. It was, after all, the first debate that so boosted them initially; there are two more of them to come. The final one of these three, one week before polling day, is on the economy and likely to be Clegg’s weakest.
The Liberal Democrats’ policies will also come under increased scrutiny. There has been speculation that their Europhilia will be at the forefront of this, and this might clash with what is generally accepted to be Britain’s scepticism over the Euro and perhaps even the EU itself. Lib Dem promises to offer an amnesty to some illegal immigrants is another controversial proposal.
Even so, it will undoubtedly take more than this to deflate the Lib Dems. Clegg took to the podium against Cameron and Brown on ITV on Thursday with a message that resonated with a disillusioned British public.
In such a volatile political environment, it would be futile to make a prediction as to what will happen before 6th May. One thing that cannot be disputed, though, is that this election will be one of the most fascinating for decades.
What a difference a year makes. 52 weeks is an eternity in politics. In nine of the last ten polls published, the Lib Dems have surged into at least second place, even leading in two, ending a sustained period of Conservative domination in which the Tories led in well over 300 consecutive polls.
Who would have thought it? (And who would have thought that this surge – a term the media seems to have collectively branded it, which seems an understatement – would be pushed from the top of the news bulletins by a non-fatal Icelandic volcano – admittedly rather an inconvenient one.)
It is an astounding turn of events. The polls suggest that the Lib Dems have doubled their vote in a matter of days, apparently thanks to the strong showing of Nick Clegg in the first Prime Ministerial debate last Thursday, which has been covered in detail elsewhere on this site.
It is barely believable that 90 minutes of admittedly engrossing primetime entertainment have put such a radically different complexion on British politics. This phenomenon is particularly curious considering that less than a quarter of the electorate actually tuned in, which comprised barely one third of people who were watching television at that time.
It was the creation of a media narrative which provided the greatest lift for the Lib Dems. At times, this has bordered on the ridiculous. One Sunday newspaper declared that Nick Clegg is the most popular politician since Winston Churchill, and this was symptomatic of a hyperbolic reaction from the public.
On Monday, Boris Johnson, in a typically non-politically correct article, compared so-called Cleggmania to the reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.
The reaction should not be dismissed, though. Indeed, with barely a fortnight to go before the electorate trudges to the polling booths, it cannot be dismissed. A hung parliament has suddenly rocketed into being bookmakers’ ‘favourite’ status.
It is equally astonishing that Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been forced to attack Lib Dem policies, particularly their pledge not to renew the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons, their support for the single European currency and their “unrealistic” tax-cutting promises.
The problems for the Tories and Labour – who can no longer be referred to accurately as the ‘two main parties’ – is that Clegg’s party has picked up support from them both.
From the Tories, this consists of anti-Labour ‘change’ voters who might have been uneasy backing the party still associated with Margaret Thatcher. From Labour, the party has attracted left-wingers who find Clegg and his team far more appealing than the recently-dissolved administration.
It is anyone’s guess as to whether the Lib Dems can sustain their bounce. It was, after all, the first debate that so boosted them initially; there are two more of them to come. The final one of these three, one week before polling day, is on the economy and likely to be Clegg’s weakest.
The Liberal Democrats’ policies will also come under increased scrutiny. There has been speculation that their Europhilia will be at the forefront of this, and this might clash with what is generally accepted to be Britain’s scepticism over the Euro and perhaps even the EU itself. Lib Dem promises to offer an amnesty to some illegal immigrants is another controversial proposal.
Even so, it will undoubtedly take more than this to deflate the Lib Dems. Clegg took to the podium against Cameron and Brown on ITV on Thursday with a message that resonated with a disillusioned British public.
In such a volatile political environment, it would be futile to make a prediction as to what will happen before 6th May. One thing that cannot be disputed, though, is that this election will be one of the most fascinating for decades.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Election race kicks off as Labour launches bid for unprecedented fourth consecutive term
In what must bring a weary smile to the faces of the British public, disillusioned with politicians and their moats, trouser presses and bell towers, Monday marked the official dissolution of Parliament, and with it the close of a particularly turbulent period at Westminster.
There are, technically, no longer any MPs, and will not be until Parliament – in whatever complexion the electorate chooses – returns on 18th May.
With the credibility of politics arguably at an all-time low, today was also the day that Labour set out its blueprint for what they hope will be their record fourth consecutive term in government.
Perhaps the toughest task for members of an incumbent administration – particularly one which has served for thirteen years – is to keep voters inspired to vote for your party. It is easy to go negative, but such an approach probably isolates at least as much of the electorate as it galvanises.
So today’s launch of the Labour Party manifesto was a tricky task for Gordon Brown. Although the polls have tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, Labour tends to trail the Conservatives by around seven or eight points.
The progress the party makes by continuing negative attacks will be limited. Sunday’s revelations about Labour supposedly targeting cancer patients, in what the opposition has labelled “scaremongering”, as well as the farcical portrayal of David Cameron as Gene Hunt, have demonstrated this.
A further concern for the government is that, in the context of the dire economic situation (whether one blames Labour or praises their handling of the crisis), there is a fine line to be drawn between being positive and appearing to bury the governmental head in the sand.
With these factors taken into consideration, the manifest launch was relatively successful. Granted, the illustration on the cover of the document brings to mind some sort of advertisement for a brand of butter, but most of the contents churned out from the Labour Party dairy are likely to provoke broadly positive reactions from the public and the media.
The headline measures include a pledge not to increase income tax levels, giving parents the right to dismiss failing headteachers and speeding up the time cancer patients have to wait for test results.
On the other hand, the manifesto also speaks loudly by its silence on certain issues. There is no guarantee not to raise the level of VAT, for example, a charge in recent days levelled against the Conservatives, most notably by the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, manifestos ensure that parties become hostages to fortune. The Conservatives have helpfully produced a list of what it describes as 102 broken Labour manifesto pledges from 2005. Such a list is designed to undermine trust in Brown and his party.
The most infamous such assurance was the promise not to return to “boom and bust”. Five years on, emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s, hindsight has revealed that Labour simply provided a stick for the other parties to beat it with.
Likewise, the promise to hold a referendum on the European Union constitutional treaty – which (albeit with some amendments) was pushed though Parliament by Labour MPs – incited similar hostility.
Nick Clegg has waded in and raises the point that Labour will perhaps find the most difficult to deflect: that the government of Blair and Brown have had thirteen years to ensure that there will be “a future fair for all”. If such policies are so meritorious, why, asked the Lib Dem leader, have they not already been introduced?
Despite such inevitable criticism, there is no doubt that Monday saw Labour finally leave the blocks of this election campaign, after being caught flat-footed by a number of episodes last week.
After setting out their stall, they will have to hope that the British people like what they hear and will reinstall Brown in Downing Street.
The Tories and the Lib Dems launch their manifestos later this week. With the first television debate scheduled for Thursday on ITV, serious assessment of the race to Downing Street will be a much simpler task by this time next week.
There are, technically, no longer any MPs, and will not be until Parliament – in whatever complexion the electorate chooses – returns on 18th May.
With the credibility of politics arguably at an all-time low, today was also the day that Labour set out its blueprint for what they hope will be their record fourth consecutive term in government.
Perhaps the toughest task for members of an incumbent administration – particularly one which has served for thirteen years – is to keep voters inspired to vote for your party. It is easy to go negative, but such an approach probably isolates at least as much of the electorate as it galvanises.
So today’s launch of the Labour Party manifesto was a tricky task for Gordon Brown. Although the polls have tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, Labour tends to trail the Conservatives by around seven or eight points.
The progress the party makes by continuing negative attacks will be limited. Sunday’s revelations about Labour supposedly targeting cancer patients, in what the opposition has labelled “scaremongering”, as well as the farcical portrayal of David Cameron as Gene Hunt, have demonstrated this.
A further concern for the government is that, in the context of the dire economic situation (whether one blames Labour or praises their handling of the crisis), there is a fine line to be drawn between being positive and appearing to bury the governmental head in the sand.
With these factors taken into consideration, the manifest launch was relatively successful. Granted, the illustration on the cover of the document brings to mind some sort of advertisement for a brand of butter, but most of the contents churned out from the Labour Party dairy are likely to provoke broadly positive reactions from the public and the media.
The headline measures include a pledge not to increase income tax levels, giving parents the right to dismiss failing headteachers and speeding up the time cancer patients have to wait for test results.
On the other hand, the manifesto also speaks loudly by its silence on certain issues. There is no guarantee not to raise the level of VAT, for example, a charge in recent days levelled against the Conservatives, most notably by the Liberal Democrats.
Of course, manifestos ensure that parties become hostages to fortune. The Conservatives have helpfully produced a list of what it describes as 102 broken Labour manifesto pledges from 2005. Such a list is designed to undermine trust in Brown and his party.
The most infamous such assurance was the promise not to return to “boom and bust”. Five years on, emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s, hindsight has revealed that Labour simply provided a stick for the other parties to beat it with.
Likewise, the promise to hold a referendum on the European Union constitutional treaty – which (albeit with some amendments) was pushed though Parliament by Labour MPs – incited similar hostility.
Nick Clegg has waded in and raises the point that Labour will perhaps find the most difficult to deflect: that the government of Blair and Brown have had thirteen years to ensure that there will be “a future fair for all”. If such policies are so meritorious, why, asked the Lib Dem leader, have they not already been introduced?
Despite such inevitable criticism, there is no doubt that Monday saw Labour finally leave the blocks of this election campaign, after being caught flat-footed by a number of episodes last week.
After setting out their stall, they will have to hope that the British people like what they hear and will reinstall Brown in Downing Street.
The Tories and the Lib Dems launch their manifestos later this week. With the first television debate scheduled for Thursday on ITV, serious assessment of the race to Downing Street will be a much simpler task by this time next week.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Tactical voting adds another level of intrigue to forthcoming battle
Lord Adonis is not the most well-known figure in Gordon Brown’s administration. However, a letter he wrote to the Independent newspaper, which called on Liberal Democrat supporters to vote Labour in those constituencies which are battlegrounds between the Conservatives and his party, became headline news for both that publication and many news bulletins on Friday morning.
So-called tactical voting is one major reason that Uniform National Swing (UNS) calculations are not necessarily reliable in translating shares of the vote in opinion polls into parliamentary seats, in spite of their lazy usage throughout the media.
The impact of tactical voting has long been considered by psephologists (election statisticians) to have a significant impact in the UK. In 1997, the Conservatives’ crushing defeat was augmented by tactical voting, with Labour and Lib Dem shares of the vote in seats in which they were not the Tories’ main challenger being squeezed.
Indeed, this was the case to such an extent that the Lib Dems actually lost three quarters of a million votes (dropping from eighteen to seventeen percent) in comparison to the previous election in 1992, yet gained 26 seats. In other words, they tended to only gain votes in seats where they could beat the Conservatives.
Adonis is clearly hoping that some of that spirit of 1997 still exists. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, he argues, have far more in common in terms of core values than do the Tories (although, perhaps hypocritically, Adonis was careful to advocate that Labour voters do not switch to the Lib Dems in constituencies where his party were in third place last time).
But has Adonis got this right? In 1997 there was a desire from vast swathes of the country to throw out the Tories, in power for eighteen years, and insert Tony Blair into Downing Street.
Now, though, the Conservatives have been relatively ‘detoxified’ under David Cameron. Indeed, it is Gordon Brown and the Labour Party which provokes far more hostility. Lib Dem voters are far more equally split as to whether they would prefer a Gordon Brown or David Cameron-led administration although most probably hope that a hung parliament means they themselves will be able to taste power).
A poll this week showed that Brown has an approval rating of minus 28, while Cameron’s is seventeen points positive. Although there is much less of a gap with regard to which party, rather than leader, is preferred, Adonis is wrong to presume overwhelming Lib Dem backing for his party. Two thirds of those intending to vote Liberal Democrat have a negative perception of the government’s record.
Issues such as the Iraq War and the flirtation with identity cards are likely to have irked Lib Dems. Adonis may even be wrong to presume that Lib Dems would necessarily prefer a Labour victory.
The tactic suggested by Adonis is neither new, nor confined to Labour; here in Durham City, the Liberal Democrat challenger has encouraged Conservative supporters to back her party, distributing a leaflet warning that ‘Voting Conservative will only let Gordon sneak back in’.
Yet such an open pronouncement by a senior member of the cabinet smacks of Labour desperation. Labour has been in power for thirteen years, so the decision to appeal – if not beg – for Lib Dem votes on just the fourth day of the campaign suggests that Labour is rattled by their deficit, which has increased over the past week to 10 points, according to two polls published on Friday.
It is curious, to say the least, for the party to appear to be fighting on an anti-Conservative ticket in place of a positive campaign supporting (or should that be defending?) their time in government.
So-called tactical voting is one major reason that Uniform National Swing (UNS) calculations are not necessarily reliable in translating shares of the vote in opinion polls into parliamentary seats, in spite of their lazy usage throughout the media.
The impact of tactical voting has long been considered by psephologists (election statisticians) to have a significant impact in the UK. In 1997, the Conservatives’ crushing defeat was augmented by tactical voting, with Labour and Lib Dem shares of the vote in seats in which they were not the Tories’ main challenger being squeezed.
Indeed, this was the case to such an extent that the Lib Dems actually lost three quarters of a million votes (dropping from eighteen to seventeen percent) in comparison to the previous election in 1992, yet gained 26 seats. In other words, they tended to only gain votes in seats where they could beat the Conservatives.
Adonis is clearly hoping that some of that spirit of 1997 still exists. Labour and the Liberal Democrats, he argues, have far more in common in terms of core values than do the Tories (although, perhaps hypocritically, Adonis was careful to advocate that Labour voters do not switch to the Lib Dems in constituencies where his party were in third place last time).
But has Adonis got this right? In 1997 there was a desire from vast swathes of the country to throw out the Tories, in power for eighteen years, and insert Tony Blair into Downing Street.
Now, though, the Conservatives have been relatively ‘detoxified’ under David Cameron. Indeed, it is Gordon Brown and the Labour Party which provokes far more hostility. Lib Dem voters are far more equally split as to whether they would prefer a Gordon Brown or David Cameron-led administration although most probably hope that a hung parliament means they themselves will be able to taste power).
A poll this week showed that Brown has an approval rating of minus 28, while Cameron’s is seventeen points positive. Although there is much less of a gap with regard to which party, rather than leader, is preferred, Adonis is wrong to presume overwhelming Lib Dem backing for his party. Two thirds of those intending to vote Liberal Democrat have a negative perception of the government’s record.
Issues such as the Iraq War and the flirtation with identity cards are likely to have irked Lib Dems. Adonis may even be wrong to presume that Lib Dems would necessarily prefer a Labour victory.
The tactic suggested by Adonis is neither new, nor confined to Labour; here in Durham City, the Liberal Democrat challenger has encouraged Conservative supporters to back her party, distributing a leaflet warning that ‘Voting Conservative will only let Gordon sneak back in’.
Yet such an open pronouncement by a senior member of the cabinet smacks of Labour desperation. Labour has been in power for thirteen years, so the decision to appeal – if not beg – for Lib Dem votes on just the fourth day of the campaign suggests that Labour is rattled by their deficit, which has increased over the past week to 10 points, according to two polls published on Friday.
It is curious, to say the least, for the party to appear to be fighting on an anti-Conservative ticket in place of a positive campaign supporting (or should that be defending?) their time in government.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
The dubious tactics of Blair's return to the political fray
Tony Blair’s return to the domestic political fray has provoked the range of responses and polarisation of opinion that Britain had grown accustomed to during his ten years in Downing Street. There can be no doubting, though, the debating skills of Labour’s longest-serving Prime Minister, which contrast markedly with those of Gordon Brown’s clumsy rhetoric. It has been widely speculated that the Labour Party encouraged Blair’s participation in the campaign to help encourage ‘Worcester woman’ – a stereotypically Conservative voter whom Blair successfully wooed by shifting his party towards the centre of the British political spectrum – to choose the party again, rather than transferring allegiance to David Cameron’s Tories.
Whether or not such a strategy is a good idea, or even an election-winning one, will naturally depend on the public’s reaction to his presence. Although presiding over two landslide election victories, in 1997 and 2001, his decision to follow President Bush into wars in Afghanistan in 2001, and in particular Iraq two years later, have perhaps defined his time in office. Before the 2005 election a multitude of opinion polls suggested that only one third of the electorate were positive about his premiership.
The Iraq War was a key issue in that election, as evidenced by the Liberal Democrats – the only one of the three main parties to oppose British involvement – increasing their number of votes by almost a million more than the Conservatives, who had backed Blair’s decision. Thus the war was, and remains, deeply unpopular, and Blair’s involvement risks reigniting an issue which, rightly or wrongly, attracts much less coverage today than five years ago.
Blair will undoubtedly persuade some wavering Labour supporters uncomfortable with Gordon Brown that their party still offers much of the same message as it did between 1994 and 2007. Indeed, although recent opinion polls appear to suggest that the gap between Labour and the Tories has closed into hung parliament territory Brown is much more unpopular than Blair. One poll published on Tuesday showed that three times as many people believe that Blair was a better Prime Minister than his Chancellor has so far proved to be.
Thus, Tony Blair’s endorsement of Gordon Brown, which almost seemed like a former US President giving his blessing to a candidate during American primaries, is designed to encourage Downing Street, boost party morale and, ultimately, win over the electorate.
Equally, it smacks of desperation. Gordon Brown insisted that he refused to call an election in October 2007 not because his lead suddenly evaporated, but because he wanted time to set out his vision for the United Kingdom. The reintroduction of Tony Blair, charismatic yet, in the eyes of many British people, tainted by Iraq, undermines Brown’s claim.
Blair is politically skilful; of that there is little doubt. But there is far from unequivocal support for the former PM – some wish he was still in charge but many loathe his legacy. It is, in this sense, a risk that Labour has taken, with a gamble designed to attract some voters having the potential to put others off. Having enjoyed the success and attracted the ridicule that he did, there should be no doubt that Blair’s involvement will galvanise voters from across the political spectrum.
Whether or not such a strategy is a good idea, or even an election-winning one, will naturally depend on the public’s reaction to his presence. Although presiding over two landslide election victories, in 1997 and 2001, his decision to follow President Bush into wars in Afghanistan in 2001, and in particular Iraq two years later, have perhaps defined his time in office. Before the 2005 election a multitude of opinion polls suggested that only one third of the electorate were positive about his premiership.
The Iraq War was a key issue in that election, as evidenced by the Liberal Democrats – the only one of the three main parties to oppose British involvement – increasing their number of votes by almost a million more than the Conservatives, who had backed Blair’s decision. Thus the war was, and remains, deeply unpopular, and Blair’s involvement risks reigniting an issue which, rightly or wrongly, attracts much less coverage today than five years ago.
Blair will undoubtedly persuade some wavering Labour supporters uncomfortable with Gordon Brown that their party still offers much of the same message as it did between 1994 and 2007. Indeed, although recent opinion polls appear to suggest that the gap between Labour and the Tories has closed into hung parliament territory Brown is much more unpopular than Blair. One poll published on Tuesday showed that three times as many people believe that Blair was a better Prime Minister than his Chancellor has so far proved to be.
Thus, Tony Blair’s endorsement of Gordon Brown, which almost seemed like a former US President giving his blessing to a candidate during American primaries, is designed to encourage Downing Street, boost party morale and, ultimately, win over the electorate.
Equally, it smacks of desperation. Gordon Brown insisted that he refused to call an election in October 2007 not because his lead suddenly evaporated, but because he wanted time to set out his vision for the United Kingdom. The reintroduction of Tony Blair, charismatic yet, in the eyes of many British people, tainted by Iraq, undermines Brown’s claim.
Blair is politically skilful; of that there is little doubt. But there is far from unequivocal support for the former PM – some wish he was still in charge but many loathe his legacy. It is, in this sense, a risk that Labour has taken, with a gamble designed to attract some voters having the potential to put others off. Having enjoyed the success and attracted the ridicule that he did, there should be no doubt that Blair’s involvement will galvanise voters from across the political spectrum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)