Labour's weapons test in Crewe

Apart from who will win, the really interesting thing about the Crewe and Nantwich by-election is the virulently anti-toff character of Labour’s campaign. One has to wonder whether Labour’s election machine has simply gone mad – or whether there is nevertheless some method here.

It is obviously a measure of desperation to use such an attack, but it is based on some elementary rules of persuasion. As it happens the current issue of New Scientist lists eight research-backed persuasive techniques and the current Labour strategy fits four of them:

1. There’s ‘framing’, turning the voting issue into something you feel comfortable with (class, instead of the government’s record).
2. There’s simplicity: giving lots of reasons for making a particular decision works less well than giving just one or two.
3. There’s a variation of mimicry, saying ‘we’re more like you, the other guys are different’.
4. And there’s anger, rousing negative feelings such as envy. The only problem is that people aren’t so well persuaded once they see that manipulative techniques are being used, and in this case they’re pretty crass.

My guess is that Labour are quite deliberately experimenting with the class issue for future use. This is a weapons-test: they think maybe they have a nuclear device with Tory Toffs. The real target, of course, is David Cameron. The Bullingdon photo in the silo for deployment in the general election, and they want to use Crewe to see if it works.

Comments

[Tom FD]

As far as I'm concerned David Cameron put the entire class warfare issue to bed when he made a speech describing how he wanted every child to have as good an upbringing as he did. Labour couldn't look more desperate if they tried. It's funny how Gordon Brown keeps attacking him for a "lack of substance" on "the real issues"; relevant issues are nowhere to be found in Labour's C&N campaign.

[James H]

An interesting point Stephan. I find it hard to believe Labour would be going with such a far-out campaign simply because they're up against the ideas wall.

As everyone's been saying (well, everyone I like), if class is the best thing Labour can come up with then they're in serious trouble.

[David Parker]

That's an interesting suggestion Stephan, and probably correct. The class argument used to be synonymous with wealth and hence rang the 'envy bell'. But, in the present climate of wealthy city fat cats, pop stars, footballers and other celebrities, not to mention many labour politicians and supporters, wealth is no longer the safest of targets for Labour to attack. The class flag has therefore not only lost much of its former potency, but could even backfire upon Labour, making them appear backward looking and out of touch with modern society.

[Tapestry]

The Trots have no idea how to tackle Cameron, a bit like the Tories in 1996 facing up to Blair. The Tories launched 'New Labour, New Danger' with devil eyes Blair, and it didn't work, although it was prescient.

The Trots are probably making a tactical error by dressing up in wedding or funeral garb, making themselves look lost in the past, as they are. They've tried portraying Cameron as weak as with 'Hug A Hoodie'. They really don't know how to tackle Cameron, as he has laid down so few opportunities for them to define him.

The chameleon was also prescient. Cameron can change his skin, and he has done so, so effectively that Labour have absolutely no idea how to nail him.

[Deborah Thomas, PPC Twickenham]

I think Stephan's point is very interesting. We should also remember that Nick Clegg also called Edward Timpson a "millionaire" in a derogatory manner, despite being one himself.

The Libs may well also try this in their campaigns, although given the demographics of some of their seats (particularly in SW London), I'm not sure how this will work.

The left may well be trying the class envy card to accuse some Conservative candidates of not sharing everyone else's economic pain.

It's pretty desperate, but it makes it all the more important for us to show how we are the only aspirational party left in British politics - we have an open goal here.

[Simon R.]

It's a technique that may have some chance of working. People do not like posh people. They see them as strange, rich, elitist, and snobbish, and they are envious of them. That is just a fact. When David Cameron did his conference speech and dealt with his schooling, the BBC monitored it for approval and it came out very badly. I think most people would rather he brushed it under the carpet and had the 'decency' to acquire some working class connections and adopt a mockney accent to fit in. It's the equivalent of putting on a posh accent to be accepted in society now.

[niconoclast]

When both parties are devoid of principles and policies what is there left to do but hurl ad hominem abuse at each other?Not one commentator on this or any other 'Conservative' site appears to be capable of grasping the sheer degree of contempt most people hold the political clases in.They wouldn't trust them with used toilet paper.

The only parties that stand for principles are BNP and Ukip which is why both labour and the tories are terrified of them and concentrate all their collective energies in villifying them.

[James, Swadlincote]

The newspapers quoted various parts of Cameron's conference speech, and I think the way it's gone now is that people are thinking classlessly, we've had 10 years of Labour screaming that we live in a classless society. So people are once again thinking on people's merits and ideas, rather than their background and wether they're from t'working class, "one of us" or not.

I beleive Cameron admitted to his "privaleged upbringing" during the amazing 2007 conference speech. I beleive it went something like:

"I had a privaleged upbringing, I'm not going to apologise for it, because I can't. I had a very special and privaleged upbringing, but I never forgot that which made me strong, my family."

The fact is, The british people like humility as well as restraint regardless of background. This is why the "Brown Bounce" in GB's early days was so high, people liked his austere and steady handed method, the problems came when he kept calling COBRA every 10 minutes whenever somebody seemed to so much as sneeze, and from there it's become much much worse.

Now, I live in a very odd place, it's called Swadlincote, and the rich happily live alongside the middle class and Working Class. So long as you have a fairly down to earth attitude and are ready to stop and listen to someones problems or position, folks won't mind if you live in a council house or one of he large farmhouses that dot the area. It's when you start attacking a man on purely his background, and not on what he says or what he stands for that it grates alongside the old fashioned stiff upper lip of the British Psyche, perhaps doubly so here as everybody's lip is very stiff indeed!

The Tories are the oldest and most sucessful political party on the face of the earth, and there's a reason for it. It's not because the ruling members of the party are related to the gentry, or are millionaires, or are "posh".

It's because those millionaires sit alongside men like William Hague, a "boy from Rotherham" they sit alongside self made men as well as the working class man who, more often than not, has helped the Tory chap into his position of money.

In the past there have been periods where the Tories have been arrogant, or complacent, we've seen it and usually durig that time Labour has managed to sneak back in, but since the rise of the Labour Party in the 1920's it has only been in power 4 times. [5 if you count the 1 year government of Macdonald's in 1924]

The Tories were in power for two-thirds of the twentieth century. This isn't some sort of evil coalition, or some form of satanic worship as Labour supporters now try to have us beleive, it's because the Tory party knows when to be proud, and when to be humble. Despite being made of monied men, it has always stopped to listen to the concerns of the Middle and Working Classes, for without their support, for a start, they wouldn't be very well off, but second of all, they defend the cause of personal freedom. Every man if free.

Another reason is that the Tories try to establish the idea of aspiration. The Grammar Schools, encouraged during a Tory Government based solely on ability, rather than background.

Cameron's dropping of support for the schools has been unusual, but his support and the proposals by the Tories to encourage City Acamdies and even have sucessful Academy owners come in to turn around failing schools show a Public-Private partntership which again has aspiration and sucess as it's main drive.

I have no doubt that under the next Conservative Government, City Academies will be transformed into the 21st Century Equivalent of Grammar Schools, which is what is so sorely needed right now.

Economically, we have seen mismanagement and bad "investment" [y'know, used to be called Spending, still is by many Tories] and a friend of mine with an economics degree has been mightly impressed by George Osbourne [and his economic advisors]in comparison to Messers Brown and Darling.

The Tories are rightly claiming back the titles they so rightly held for so long in the last centry, so here's to a new century in which the Conservatives may be the natural party of government, and Labour be the rightful party of opposition!

[Tony Makara]

This class-envy belongs to another era, it is old-fashioned, ridiculously so. There is so much hypocrisy behind it too. The very people who are pushing this hatred are those who have grubbingly welcomed opportunity for themselves. Those who welcomed the financial support of people like Lord Levy and others. The Conservative campaign should equate 'toffism' with hate, because that is exactly what Labour are trying to create in Crewe. Hating a man for no other reason than his background. Its disgusting those suffering this abuse really ought to have the right to complain that they are victims of a hate crime.

[martin sewell]

The response to this kind of negative campaigning may have to be mulit-facetted and one of those aspects might be " So what, hasn't so much social and political reform come out of those with the time and resources to devote to the underprivileged?"

William Wilberforce was plainly from a background of relative substance as were Lord Shaftsbury, Elizabeth Fry, Millicent Fawcett, Thomas Coram, Marie Stopes the Fabians, even the founders of the Green Party..... please add your own favourite.

[Dave B]

I can't believe this 'tory toffs' nonsense is going to win any votes, I think I'm looking forward to the postmortem on the C&N byelection more than the result :-)

[David Parker]

Niconoclast,
I think that you will find plenty of posters on this site, as ordinary members of the public themselves, understand, share and have frequently commented upon, the anger and contempt for the new cross party,'professional political class' felt by an increasing number of (former)voters.That is probably why most of us bother to contribute to this site.
This, however, is far removed from the 'Class Card' which Labour is currently trying to play.
James Swadlingcote,
There are many points upon which I would agree, but sadly, no one could honestly claim that the modern 'Conservative' party is not heavily infested with and dependent upon members of the new professional political class.

[Boyce]

I'm pretty sure the owner of the infamous Bullingdon photo won't be allowing it to see the light of day for a while. Whoever it was took it (I can't remember if he was named or not) won't be wanting to burn his links with the future PM just yet.

[Ralph]

Stephan,

Perhaps things are prosaic than that, like any group when their backs are against the wall the Labour Party revert to what worked in the past.

Sadly for Labour when the voters want to give them a lesson the are behind the bike sheds with their fingers in their ears.

[Brandon]

Stephan, in large part I agree. I do believe that labour are trying anything they can to have an impact, they also are using every trick they can. they have used these sort of 'persuasion' sets before, as do most political parties working to win, but these only work when they are not rammed down your face. you are right to note that these are soo crass and obvious that people end up feeling patronised rather than persuaded.

I have seen them already use similar (though not as crass and direct as in Crewe) against me in my constituency last October when they thought there would be a GE.
Of course the proof is in the pudding come thursday :-)

[Neil Wilson]

I do believe that they will, if the tactic is successful, use it in 2010.

The idea will be to target the urban areas of marginal seats with this nonsense and hope it motivates enough disgruntled Labour voters out to reelect their useless representatives.

The down side to this is that they risk losing a lot of volunteers because, let's face it, only a compete moron would be seen dead handing out their current literature.

If it doesn't work in Crewe, a Northern constituency, it's not going to work elsewhere though.

One wonders what political circles in other countries would make of their tactics. It's embarrassing in 2008 that the ruling party, one so widely courted by American Republicans, are still resorting to such tactics.

[m dowding]

James, Swadlincote,
A brilliant and excellent post.

[Matt Wright]

If Labour are testing a weapon its a faulty heat seeking missile. When it turns round and destroys them, they will deserve it.

[Johnny (Half)Foreigner]

Class may play out better in South Cheshire than you think. Having experienced the discomfort of growing up in the area with a neutral North London accent, and been subjected to daily taunts about being "posh" or "stuck-up", I can tell you Dunwoody's strategists are homing in on an all-too-real prejudice. I still believe they'll fail, but on the principle of the lesser of two evils ("yes he's a toff, but at least he's not one of Gordon's bunch"), rather than because the tactic itself is flawed.

The delicious irony of my own experience is that my grandparents were staunchly working class (and trade union shop stewards to boot) and my mother, an immigrant from a third world country. For half my childhood we didn't have two brass pennies to rub together. Locals to C&N couldn't tell a genuine "toff" if he walked up and poked them with a brass-tipped walking cane. Which, again, suggests Dunwoody's strategy would be perfectly effective, if she just didn't come hitched to GB...

[TrevorH]

I doubt the basis of this post is sound. Labour tried it in London and it failed. It a tactic born out of stupidity and desperation.

I think the Tory 'Grand Theft Auto' on the other hand is inspired.

[John W]

20 years ago 'Tory Toff' would have been a killer strategy in a place like Crewe, 10 years ago it would likely have won some votes.

But society and particularly class and our relationship to it have changed (stating the obvious I know) - class has not disappeared, nor ceased to matter, but it has become a lot more complex and indeed less divisive generally. People who are of a mature voting age will have had a lot more opportunity to mix with people not from their class, whether 'upwards' or 'downwards', and have experienced a sense of classlessness (though the reality may be somewhat different). 'Tory Toff' doesn't make sense anymore, it just does not. 'Nasty Tory', 'Greedy Tory', 'Racist Tory' would still gain some traction but in the face of Mr Timpson, and David Cameron, these slurs are untenable, almost patently ridiculous.

We are in a new age of politics, the Labour Party have nothing left - and will lose the battle of ideas because their language makes sense to fewer and fewer people. It would take a rebirth similar in magnitude to the Blairite one to see them stay in power, or be returned there after the Great Turfing Out.

This is our generation.

[Dave B]

@Trevor H

What is the 'tory grand theft auto'?

[A Brummie Tory]

If the C&N campaign is some kind of sophisticated test, then it is the first sophistcated thing Steve McCabe MP (the Labour campaign organiser) has ever done.

I remember his leaflets from his Birmingham Council days and they were always rather crass.

[Mac]

If Labour's campaign is successful they certainly should use it in the GE. If they are not successful it will probably show voters are not really interested in the family background of a candidate.

As long as they are not telling outright lies, which they are not - merely exaggerating, then it is up to the Tories to show the hypocrisy of the argument, Tamsin's full name, large home, TB 6 homes etc.

London has shown people will vote for a "toff" if they believe they are the right person to put in charge.

It is not Labour's job to make things easy for the Tories. If they are going to win the next election they will need to hit back hard not spend weeks whining about Labour tactics.

[Bexie]

When you consider that a good proportion of our candidates are from relatively poor backgrounds (as MP's go) and a good proportion of the Zanulab party are from the Krug swilling Islington mob then this could backfire on them rather unpleasantly.

[B.Garvie]

Labour has become a disfunctional party run by incompetents. Look at the politics of envy being displayed in Crewe.

Labour made the unforgivable mistake to say about the Tory candidate, "He drives a Bentley".. so what. Don't they realise Bentleys and Rollers are made in Crewe???

Labour has run out of ideas, run out of steam and run out of road.

[Sally Roberts]

It's a tactic which smacks of the school playground!

[John Moss]

The Left always end up playing the man, not the ball. We should be wary of doing the same with our taunting of Brown. If we attack his indecision and his policy failures, fine, but leave off the psychologically flawed stuff - interesting that that comment came from with Labour ranks!

Livingstone tried it in London and it failed. He portrayed Johnson as a joke - quite literally stating on his leaflets, "don't vote for a joker, vote for London".

That said, he did increase his vote by 22% or thereabouts, so Labour may have thought it worked. In truth, it was a close election and people bothered to vote for a very basic reason, it would matter. in '97, '01 and '05 voting didn't matter, the results were a foregone conclusion.

I wonder sometimes if psephologists and professional politicos spend too much time looking at spreadsheets and road-testing catchphrases? They might find time to talk to people, on the doorsteps, NOT in election campaigns. They might learn something!