Saying Sorry

The last political cycle has been all about saying sorry. The politicians have said it, the bankers have said it, the economists have said it, etc. etc.

The list is almost never-ending. Even the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have said it! Next we’ll find deities saying it… in their own divine way of course.

The thing is, a public apology doesn’t change people’s opinion of you. Rarely does it seem sincere. With Gordon Brown’s huge gaffe today about calling a woman ‘bigoted’ in private, like something straight out of an episode of The Thick of It, his immediate apology just doesn’t cut it.

I think we’d rather he was himself. He could only really regain any public respect by sticking to his comments, letting us show that he’s decided to be himself in public. It was part of the attraction that spurred the ‘Brown Bounce’ back in 2007 when he seized the reins of government. Since then, the obvious spinning and the fake smiles have just pulled him down in our estimation. Nobody likes a pretender.

If Brown wants to survive at all with only 9 days to go until May 6th, he should say sorry for not having called the woman bigoted to her face. And then told her why. We like politicians who stick to their opinions – it’s one of the reasons we admire people like Ann Widdecombe and Frank Field, despite the fact we may disagree with them.

It’s one of the reasons Vince Cable’s popularity gradually slips away as he appears to change his mind. Whether this is based on changing evidence or an adaptation to newer developments is irrelevant – the perception is one of ‘flip-flopping’, as George W Bush so effectively labelled John Kerry in ’04.

Politicians: Please stick to your guns. We might not like you for it, but we will respect you.

Debate II

Wasn’t it brilliant?!

Don’t answer that question. It was. Cameron got all angry and fired up (like a Quattro?), Clegg was occasionally on fire (prompting people in the streets to go “woooooaaaaoooh your Clegg is on fiiiiire”?), particularly on the immigration amnesty, and even Brown was impressive, displaying his force (hitting the microphone like the Brown Bear that he is – there was none of last time’s Bear Hug to squeeze Clegg).

I felt it was too close to call for much of it, although Cameron or Clegg may have only just edged ahead of Brown and each other. I still felt Cameron’s “Big Society” project could have done with a bit of fleshing out – it’s really quite simple, but nobody seems to get it, largely as nobody’s bothered to read up on it. He also managed to corner Brown on this lying-in-leaflets fiasco. Brown on the other hand brought back the politics of loss (see previous post of that name) to great effect. Cameron very effectively countered it with accusations of scaremongering – this turned into a very Obama-esque “Hope vs. Fear”, probably best used by Clegg – I can’t wait for the next movies; “Return of the Cleggi” and “The Labour Party Strikes Back”.

The polls seem to have stayed stable, suggesting the LibDems’ phenomenally high poll rating is here to stay at least until the next debate. At this rate, I may explode from excitement in the next debate. Clegg’s performance barely changed, but those of his rivals improved dramatically. The added aggression made this a real debate, and it was great to see tempers flaring. I expect nothing less than lightsabres for next week’s. I think Brown’s red one must make him Sith…

LibDems are like a Hydra

The Hydra: you cut off one head, and it just grows two more heads in its place.

I’m not suggesting that Clegg would be two-headed if you decapitated him, but that the more you attack the LibDems, the stronger they get.

The recent attempts to smear Clegg by the Telegraph and Daily Mail have merely reinforced the perception that Clegg is anti-establishment. You see, to kill a hydra, you can’t go for the jugular, you have to go straight for the heart.

“So how do I kill them?!” you may ask. I hope you’d be asking that figuratively, but here are a few suggestions.

1) Ignore them. It’s tough, because of the debates, but between debates, the more the word ‘Clegg’ appears in the papers, the worse it gets. Even when you’re attacking them. You’ve got two weeks – that’s more than enough time to move the agenda to something else, and not everybody actually reads the incredible polling data that suggests they’re in first place.

2) Slap Clegg down in the debate. I still think Clegg’s star would not have risen so phenomenally rapidly had he been slapped down over Trident. It was Brown’s strategy to get the LibDems to out-Cameron Cameron in terms of the positives, but he could easily have gone “I think you’re being hopelessly naive, Nick. You’d put the entire country at risk”. (See what I did there – even added a bit of the Politics of Loss from my previous post). Cue reaction shot as Clegg momentarily flounders. You see what I mean.

3) The Hug of Death. Brown’s clever, and I’d better stop saying that before it seems like I admire him… Brown created Clegg as a political superstar with his “I agree with Nick”, thus damaging the Tories, but he’s treading a fine line. He wants Nick to damage Cameron, but doesn’t want to lose out completely himself. This means protecting the LibDems from the assault by today’s right-leaning newspapers. Cue Mandelson.

The hug effect can go three ways, all positive for Labour. One would take votes away from the Tories, particularly in Lab-Con marginals, one would taint the anti-politics Clegg with the establishment Brown, and the last would prevent a liberal surge by galvanising Tory voters to keep them out. However, these mixed effects could look different in different types of marginal, and it relies on the Liberal surge not growing much more than it is now.

4) Unleash the Media Attack-dogs. But hang on, I just said… yes… yes I did. Bear with me a second. The Tories may be trying to get the Brown Bear to hug the liberals too tightly. By getting Labour to be ever friendlier to the LibDems, it’ll associate Clegg too much with Labour, adding power to charges of “Vote for Clegg gives you Brown”, as well as lessening Clegg’s anti-establishment credentials. Again, this strategy relies on not allowing the Liberal surge to grow by too much.

Both 3 and 4 are fundamentally flawed: they forget that Clegg has been very adept at deflecting the hug effect, and it again fails to take into account the hydra effect. The Tory one in particular fails to see the the conflict between making Clegg pro-establishment by associating him with Brown, and making him even more anti-establishment by having the press attack him in the first place.

I’d say stick to 1 and 2 if you want to play it safe and turn it back into a Lab-Con fight. I don’t think Brown will allow this to happen, however – he seems to keen on playing with yellow fire. 3 party politics is here to stay.

The Politics of Loss

Following on from my last post, it’s interesting to see how Brown’s astute observation of loss outweighing gain in the public’s perception (particularly with ‘the recovery’ and ‘protecting frontline services’), can be used by the other parties.

For example, both the Conservatives and LibDems could use a loss narrative when it comes to civil liberties. Instead of simply using the phrase ‘civil liberties’, which to many is just jargon, they could say “Labour’s putting your rights at risk”, “Labour’s threatening to take away your right to a fair trial!”, then “Labour’s threatening to subvert the law and order system – it’s taking away your freedom from government oppression!”

You get the picture – in the end, I’m sure it would settle as something like: “Labour’s taking away your freedom!” (it certainly seems to work in the US, even with the use of “liberty”), although talking about “rights” may be more potent – using their own language against them would be pretty devastating.

In fact, the simple formula of “X is taking away your Y” would work for pretty much anything, especially when coupled with “A are safeguarding/protecting Y”. We see it in local campaigning all the time (e.g. “Working to protect the local A&E”), but I think it’s far more effective when used as an overarching strategy.

The politics of loss is mostly used by the left – and you can see why – it’s far easier to say that X are taking away frontline services, without even needing to consciously adopt it as a strategy. If anything, it comes naturally. But this powerful weapon in the electoral arsenal ought to be adopted by liberals and conservatives. I mentioned civil liberties as an example, but the same strategy could be used with regards to the economy (“Labour’s putting the recovery at risk with their NI rise” – see what I did there?), taxes (“Labour’s taking away your money!”), even frontline services (“Labour’s taking away your choices!” – works in the US with regards to healthcare, so why not use it here? Maybe we’re just a little slow…)

This is not to say that this strategy can work on its own, and it shouldn’t serve as a replacement for any positive campaigning or policy, but it’s a weapon that needs to be deployed.

Brown’s an Election Genius.

Brown’s an election genius. Well, maybe not a genius, but the word caught your attention, and he’s still very clever when it comes to elections.

Here’s why. Remember 1997? I barely do as I was too young, but that’s besides the point: Charlotte Gore informs me (on twitter) that had Major campaigned on the issue of the economy, the Conservatives may actually have narrowly won again. After all, the economy was in pretty good shape, and I doubt many would have wanted to risk it had the threat of Labour mismanagement been raised. Instead, the Tories attacked on two conflicting fronts: “New Labour, New Danger” didn’t really fit with charges that Labour were being copycats.

Blair and his team very cleverly removed some of the obvious attack points on the economy such as nationalisation and higher taxes. This meant they could then stress the positive points of improved services provision whilst the Conservatives were caught by surprise. Had Major framed Labour as threatening to destroy the economic inheritance, coupled with a charge of “same old Labour”… well, you can see where this is going.

Brown, it would seem, has learnt from this mistake, or rather, from this missed opportunity. He recognises that people hate losing things far more than they like gaining things. He has therefore raised the spectre of “Tory cuts to frontline services”. Regardless of the fact that either party will have to make cuts, Brown has framed the election debate as being one of preserving the inheritance of the Labour government, just like Major failed to do in terms of the economic situation. He has coupled this with the charge of “Same old Tories” despite Cameron’s efforts at reframing the debate back exclusively to the economy by guaranteeing various departments, etc. Brown is further aided by a (albeit slowly) recovering economy and can even to a certain extent play the “don’t put the economy/recovery at risk” card.

In a sense, 2010 is the direct opposite of 1997 in terms of the strategies adopted.

The LibDems have shaken this up a bit, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out, but don’t for a second underestimate the strategic power of Gordon Brown.

Cleggomania?

Has anybody else noticed these new words?

Cleggomania, Cleggophile, Cleggolatry, Cleggtopia etc. You get the picture I think. In fact, they’re suddenly so prevalent that I don’t need to explain what they mean! Clegg is apparently almost as popular as Churchill, and has overtaken St. Vince of Twickenham as our new favourite politician.

To his credit, he performed well despite showcasing his allegedly (according to the polls) most unpopular policies on immigration (amnesty) and prisons (focus on rehab). The resulting poll boost has been both enduring and significant, particularly amongst young people. I can’t for the life of me figure out what led to such a  huge tactical blunder on the part of the Conservatives. I suspect Gordon Brown knew this would happen – after all, he already knew he was the less personable when placed next to Cameron. There’s no need to point out that this surge was inevitable – years of pleasing everyone (inevitable given the two sometimes conflicting ideological strands running through them) finally paid off for the LibDems.

One quick word about the debates, actually – why all this fuss about the long list of rules? I’m actually quite glad the audience isn’t allowed to do much – whilst I like politicians that can think on their feet, a hostile or biased audience can very quickly influence public opinion, as well as sometimes being downright annoying. Some are great (like the infamous ‘Dick… sorry, Nick Griffin’ “mistake” guy), but often you find plants (like the infuriating token Socialist Workers Party guy, or the occasional BNP member), as well as the “I think this” person who doesn’t actually ask a question. Grrr.

No, the debates are all the better for the lack of audience participation because it shifts focus to the leaders themselves. Rightly so.

Anyway, merited or not, Cleggomania is exciting! The most underwhelming general election in British politics suddenly turned into the most exciting, with the LibDems occaionally polling out in front! Whilst the surge has been sustained, we could even see LibDem government if we see a further post-debate surge! Unlikely, but now possible.

I suspect there could be another surge too. After all, the first debate on domestic policy should have been Clegg’s worst. Immigrant amnesties, prison reform and an ambiguous position on drugs do not an election (usually) win! Instead, the others underperformed, as well as failing to attack. I remain convinced that Brown could have slapped Nick down with a simple “You’re being hopelessly naive” when it came to Trident replacement. Cue reaction shot.

The next debates ought to be better for Clegg. Tomorrow’s debate is on foreign policy. That means he can resurrect the ghost of Iraq to haunt the other two, as well flaunting his experience working in the EU and the fact he can speak 5 languages. He and Brown will dwarf Cameron on experience. He dealt well with the Trident issue, although it may come up again, and on Europe I can’t see Labour attacking him – Cameron may use EU to his advantage, differentiating himself from the other two, but Clegg will know his lines well by now… and they propose a referendum. A fairly watertight position I’d say. On Afghanistan, I suspect it’ll go the same way as defence did in the first debate, but who knows what will happen there?!

On the other hand, the others will have learnt more from the first debate. Clegg may no longer come across as the most personable. I suspect Cameron and Brown will be looking straight down the camera. Clegg will also have to beware Brown’s Hug of (Electoral) Death. He deftly extricated himself from it last time, but the Brown Bear will be back – and their hugs really can kill.

Exciting stuff. Let’s see what happens!

Hello world!

I’m back. I used to blog as the humble economist, but I decided that was too boring. I don’t like aliases either. Why not just keep things plain and simple? So I’m Anton – but you knew that already because you probably found this via twitter… which means you’re following me… you stalker, you!