The nasty party lost this election
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on May 10, 2010 7:00 am
Tories found a grinning Gordon Brown repulsive, and assumed voters did too
THEY are not deafening, but if you listen closely you can hear the rumblings from within the Conservative Party. In a little over 80 hours the emotions have lurched from incredulity at that exit poll to indignation directed towards the leadership. Christopher Montgomery, by no means a mainstream Tory figure, might nevertheless sum up the views of a great many activists over the weekend when he wrote: “losing the unlosable election wasn’t just the work of one man. It took a whole army of enablers and flatterers.”
Blaming the leader’s apparatchiks is predictable, and the mutterings against Steve Hilton and his team of Tory modernisers are not new. Wiser heads have reiterated the scale of the challenge facing Cameron in overturning a clear Labour majority. And yet there persists a feeling that beating a Labour party mired in economic gloom and led by such an electorally unattractive figure should have been attainable.
Rather than look to the vagueness of Cameron’s big society, or the absence of a Tory Clause 4 moment through which to cleanse the Conservative brand, it is this ruthless focus on the character of Gordon Brown that Tories might consider a principal blunder. The vitriol directed at the Prime Minister, both through and by the right-wing media over past 18 months or more has been astounding. For over a year, we have been treated to the repeated and clearly stated allegation that Brown is clinically insane. He is commonly described as a liar. Pre-election suggestions that he was a bully were wallowed in. There has been no let-up in the grimly absorbing depiction of a psychopath running the country.
In this, the Conservatives must have considered themselves on safe ground. They could count on the enthusiastic support of much of the commentariat and, it seemed, the voters. Going into this election, the Prime Minister’s approval ratings stood at -26. The popular verdict seemed clear; the punters were similarly repelled by Brown. But a more nuanced assessment of the public mood was ignored in the stampede to stampede Brown. Gordon was certainly unpopular, but by nowhere near as much as imagined. Out in the country, voters were prepared to balance out Brown’s flaws against the credit he had accrued as Chancellor, and the global sure-footedness he appeared to demonstrate during the banking crisis. His approval ratings, if they had been viewed in context, might have helped affirm this; at -26 they were bad, but at the same point in the electoral cycle in 1997 John Major’s approval ratings were much worse: -44.
Blinded by their own loathing of Brown, the Tories plastered posters of a grinning Gordon throughout marginal seats, ignoring the fact that when passed at speed they presented a rather attractive image of the Prime Minister. They sought to frame the central election issue as “do you want five more years of Gordon Brown?” – a question that, as JohnMcTernan suggests, invites a critical analysis instead of a damning verdict. It will remain an eternal imponderable that if the Lib Dem surge had not occurred, and the Tories had stuck to their game plan of making the last five days a referendum on Brown’s character, they have have won fewer, not more, seats.
As a tactical error, this conflation of self-mood and public mood has had serious enough ramifications. But as a character study of the Conservative Party it is perhaps even more significant. For all its recent attempts at rehabilitation, elements within the Tory party allowed themselves to believe that living out their own giddying hatred of Gordon Brown would woo voters. It was a triumph for the nasty party that denied victory to the Conservative Party. Sunshine lost the day.
Tags: 2010 General Election, Conservatives, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Labour
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
8 Comments
It’s 2004 in the USA again.
Everybody hated Bush,nobody loved John Kerry. Voting against is never a prescription for success. I honestly thought anti-Brown fervour would so backfire that, like with Bush, he too would be returned to office because so very few voted FOR Cameron vs. AGAINST Brown. (I guess the UK needs voting machines to rig!)
30% undecided going into the polls does not mean this would be a ‘change’ election. The LibDems squandered an opportunity from the very beginning to be a real, focused force for change.
McDonalds used to have a great kid’s dessert called the Mix ‘n Muddle where you could essentially take a tray-full of ingredients and make your own ice cream sundae.
The UK did just that. Now everybody… open wide….
This was a blunder but so too was the Labour approach which played on the idea of the ‘same old Tories’. Their last PPB on Radio Wales was so focussed on this it could have come from the 1990s. Cameron is not Thatcher and Labour’s failure to say much (anything?) that was positive cost them dear too.
The real problem the country is in a mess, the people are sick of politicians treating us like fools, and they voted in a way which leaves the country in a bigger mess.
But sadly I could not be bother looking at my ballot paper. I opened it closed my eyes and stuck a pencil on it – the one I came nearest to I voted for. It was lucky it was not Labour it was not Tory it was not Liberal, so I made a box of my own and wrote “none of the above”.
MartinJohnes argues that Labour blundered by playing “on the idea of the ’same old Tories’. Their last PPB on Radio Wales was so focused on this it could have come from the 1990s. Cameron is not Thatcher”.
But in what way are Cameron’s Tory policies essentially different from Thatcher’s Tory policies? Beyond the ‘hug a hoody’ fluffy rhetoric aimed at detoxifying the Tory brand, where are the key differences between old and new Tories?
As for the claim that “Labour’s failure to say much (anything?) that was positive cost them dear too” – well, (1) Labour did promote a positive programme, including wiser management of the economy through to recovery than that threatened by their opponents; (2) as noted elsewhere on WalesHome, a major part of campaigning for all parties has been contrasting their position with that of their opponents. ALL parties failed “to say much (anything?) positive”. So singling out Labour for this criticism is a tad unfair.
Martin wrote: “This was a blunder but so too was the Labour approach which played on the idea of the ’same old Tories’. Their last PPB on Radio Wales was so focussed on this it could have come from the 1990s. Cameron is not Thatcher and Labour’s failure to say much (anything?) that was positive cost them dear too.”
I disagree profoundly. In Wales this message played very well indeed.
Labour’s share of the Welsh vote fell from 42.7 percent in 2005 to 36.2 percent. That does not suggest a successful campaign. I’m sure Adam is right that Labour’s message played well amongst some supporters – the fall in the vote could have been much worse but it was still a significant fall. There are plenty of people (like me) who voted Labour in 97, 01 and 05 but not in 2010.
Gez is quite right that all parties were fairly negative and I was only singling out Labour because the article was singling out the Tories. But Cameron is not Thatcher. To answer his question, Thatcher would never have promised not to abolish devolution and civil partnerships for example.
I would still never vote Tory but I felt disappointed at the way Labour tried to get me to vote for them by slagging off the Tories. There are a great many things to be afraid in the economic future but saying it will be worse under ‘the other lot’ instead of concentrating of how it will be better under ‘us’ just puts people off. In the most interesting and important election for a generation, 35% of people did not vote. Parties have to ask themselves why. Negative campaigning is one answer.
Hi all
Just to clarify: I didn’t say Labour’s message worked well – Daran did.
For my own part, I think Labour had a(nother) shocking night, and I’m amazed some Labour figures have the nerve to indulge in back-slapping about achieving a vote share that would have made Michael Foot blush. Sacrificing some seats but just about holding on that “second row” is nothing whatsoever to crow about.
I’ve seen a few of these big posters around Wales, with a huge face of Brown smiling , traveling with some elderly people in a vehicle last week one of the ladies said ‘Nice photograph of Gordon brown’, eyesight was not good enough to read the small ‘Vote for conservative’ writing,
Tories must think the electorate is as a Daft as a Brush!
In fact the designer of these posters is as Thick as a Saddleback Pig as most people are too busy looking at the image of gordie rather the relatively tiny tory writing, Car travels past so quickly people do not know is trying to promote what