Michael Portillo, who I greatly admire, used his Sunday Times column on the weekend before the Southall and Sedgefield by-elections to call on David Cameron to show more ‘cojones’, reminding him that the ‘half-hearted’ don’t get to the top. He meant that up to now the modernising project had lacked the necessary ruthlessness, and that DC should stop feeding the party’s ‘baying right’.
Since then the party has had two awful by-elections – twice pushed into third place – and yesterday was hit with two more woeful opinion polls. Maybe Michael’s suggestion that DC is not yet sufficiently like Blair is the correct explanation for the recent down-turn in David Cameron’s fortunes. Maybe the party needed an even more modern candidate in Southall.
Unlikely, but possible. One thing strikes me as certain, however: the ultra-modernisers are already starting to prepare the ground for blaming any future failure on ‘the baying right’.
This seems unfair. ‘The right’ has never been better behaved. It has preferred to mutter under its breath rather than make trouble, constantly reiterating (correctly) that David Cameron is ‘the only show in town’, accepting that there is no alternative.
Speaking for myself, I’m not ‘on the right’, being fairly liberal on social issues while somewhat conservative on economic issues. But perhaps I’ve been baying in my sleep? We should be told: if like me one is perfectly modern, but doesn’t happen to believe that ‘being modern’ is the answer to anything, does that mean one is to blame for the faltering poll ratings? Or might there be other factors?
There’s a new book out (The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen) which is causing great excitement amongst the self-styled political branding gurus. It suggests that political appeal is all about subjective feeling. Based on sophisticated research using brain scans of people receiving political messages, the book says that the effect of political discussion is mostly emotional not rational.
I have no doubt the research is valid. But it is quite wrong to conclude that winning power is mainly about getting the emotional branding right. Firstly, it tells us how to communicate, not what to communicate. Secondly, people’s wider experiences and needs are much more powerful than the little bit that is touched by hearing the occasional soundbite from a politician. Emotional branding can have a significant effect, but most people do not make important decisions on the basis of snippets of lifestyle advertising. Government and hairspray are not in the same class of choices.
Very clever politicos sometimes have a problem with perspective. They tend to confuse the superficial and the deep. The most profound research that political strategists (and would-be governments) should study is not brain scans of people listening to debates, but the experiments of Kahneman and Tversky, which explore through simple but cunning tests the basic survival instincts of humanity. These Nobel prize-winning behavioural economists showed that most people over-value (that is, according to rational criteria) what they already possess, compared with some future outcome. They are much more driven to conserve what they have now rather than risk it for something more in the future. For example, they require odds of at least 2-to-1 to take part in a wager on a coin-toss (whereas rationally, they should take the bet with a mere 51-49 payout). Risk-takers are the minority.
This is very important for understanding Cameron’s situation. For people to switch from a Labour government to a Conservative government they will have to believe not only that the swap will deliver a benefit – they must believe it will deliver a benefit several times bigger than what they feel they could lose by the change. Of course that loss is undefinable, but it is apprehended mainly through a sense of economic well-being and security. Triviality will therefore reinforce the reasons for not switching. Gamble your home for a groovy narrative? No thanks. The implication of Kahneman and Tversky’s work (known as ‘prospect theory’) for politics is quite clear: for an opposition to concern itself primarily with lifestyle branding, cultural positioning, and arguing the toss about where the ‘centre-ground’ might be, is a catastrophic mistake. Nothing communicates more powerfully that the prospectus is empty.
Because of people’s in-built economic and social conservatism, they will not change government unless the existing one is perceived as damaging their lives, or the potential new one is reckoned to deliver very strong improvements. Remember, they need 2-to-1 odds. It is the size of the risk-to-reward ratio that is crucial. It means that the Conservatives can only win under one of two conditions: either if Brown is seen as a failure, or if Cameron is believed to deliver huge tangible benefits.
Cameron must therefore have two objectives. Firstly, to be ‘socially acceptable’ in the (unlikely) event that Brown messes up. On this basis, Project Cameron has worked extremely well. It should continue to be part of the normal modern world.
The second objective is to offer clear, undeniable benefits to the voters. This does not mean electoral ‘bribes’: it is the fundamental task of an opposition which truly aspires to government to develop policies that substantially improve life for ordinary people. This is where the Project has been weak. It has been too excited and diverted by the branding strategy, a useful wrap-around but not the core proposition.
Michael, I think this is what ‘the right’ has been asking for, and quite politely, with a minimum of baying. The party’s campaign in Southall had all the outward signs of the modernising branding strategy, but insufficient underlying appeal to make voters come out and vote Conservative. If David needs to show more ‘cojones’, it is surely in the policy department, not in a fantasy struggle against some old Aunt Sallies.
Andrew Lilico at 06:34 PM
Indeed, Andrew.
There is a continuum of dissatisfaction, so in tactical terms, our claim to legitimacy as the next government must therefore lie with our ability to demonstrate willingness and sound reasoning in addressing the most severe dissenters and everything else “under the curve” – i.e. we need to show courage with distinctive, even radical, policies that the present government lack to put matters right.
I am in agreement with various aspects of Stephan's claims and your interpretation of them. My contribution, however, is more mundane ("real world") and comes from the unique privilege and experience in dealing with the entire spectrum of political affiliations and social classes.
Posted by: Teck | July 24, 2007 at 02:04 PM
If Mr Cameron is the only conservative leadership alternative, the Conservative Party will lose the next two national elections. The party needs to study greater conservative party successes elsewhere - in Canada, Australia, and France in particular. Here in Britain, something is seriously wonky; the Tory leader appears contrived rather than slick, too obviously derivative rather than fresh or vital. Nor does he give the appearance of a man who wants first prize.
Mr Cameron's background, too, is a political problem: it can indicate a certain feyness/dilettantishness, it appears to many in (and outside) the UK to be chronologically misplaced in modern Britain. Britain will not vote for Mr Cameron for several reasons: his personal and professional background, his political style, and now, his political judgement (his Ealing by-election strategy, and now his Rwandan 'State Visit' will most certainly be used against him in the next national election). None of these features can resonate with an increasingly discerning and very media-savvy Britain post-Blair.
Can Mr Cameron change? Perhaps, but it is unlikely. Nor is he a politically talented enough individual to avoid defeat by a lethal gamesman and Prime Minister at the next national poll.
Guarantee it. Mr Cameron is no Mr Harper, Mr Howard, or M. Sarkozy. Nor is he a Tony Blair. But he should be of their stature - in order to win a national election. It'll be some other MP's turn, I suspect.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, by contrast, appears to be slowly working up to political greatness.
Best wishes,
Posted by: james | July 24, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Cameron is not currently in government and as such there is a limit to what he can do to resolve the flooding crisis except give moral support.
Don't we pay Cameron £160,000pa from the Consolidated Fund to do this job - yet Arthur Waik tells me You might do better to vent your anger on the people who *are* in government
So now I pay for a dog and must bark myself !
This is a funny notion of government. I think it is the job of The Opposition to hold the Executive to account
Posted by: TomTOm | July 24, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Cameron is not currently in government and as such there is a limit to what he can do to resolve the flooding crisis except give moral support.
Don't we pay Cameron £160,000pa from the Consolidated Fund to do this job - yet Arthur Waik tells me You might do better to vent your anger on the people who *are* in government
So now I pay for a dog and must bark myself !
This is a funny notion of government. I think it is the job of The Opposition to hold the Executive to account
Posted by: TomTOm | July 24, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Cameron is not currently in government and as such there is a limit to what he can do to resolve the flooding crisis except give moral support.
Don't we pay Cameron £160,000pa from the Consolidated Fund to do this job - yet Arthur Waik tells me You might do better to vent your anger on the people who *are* in government
So now I pay for a dog and must bark myself !
This is a funny notion of government. I think it is the job of The Opposition to hold the Executive to account
Posted by: TomTOm | July 24, 2007 at 08:11 PM
James; July 24, 2007 at 05:20 PM
"Britain will not vote for Mr Cameron for several reasons: his personal and professional background, his political style, and now, his political judgement..."
Who is/are the candidate(s) who "can resonate with an increasingly discerning and very media-savvy Britain post-Blair?"
Posted by: Teck | July 25, 2007 at 05:14 AM
Teck:
'Who is/are the candidate(s) who "can resonate with an increasingly discerning and very media-savvy Britain post-Blair?" '
One would have thought your answer obvious:
'One or some individuals among those without the aforementioned 'D. Cameron' features!'
Defend Mr Cameron as your choice for leader to win either or both of the next two general elections at least, if you can.
Best wishes,
Posted by: james | July 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Quite so, Mr Shakespeare, but the tory modernisers have been insulting the tory party and especially the right since they first stirred into life. The fact that we have generally buttoned our lips and stayed loyal - whether as out and out rightists or ordinary conservatives - will in no way mitigate the venom with which they routinely spray us. These people, who have made a total mess of two by-elections, presume to tell their critics that they "don't get" politics. For them, politics is not a matter of belief but a matter of careers. Having served up a nice, juicy defeat they will leave these still socialist shores and take up jobs in the States - probably not in politics. As to you points about social acceptability don't you realise that the left has managed to manipulated the notion of what is and what is not acceptable to the point where all seriously conservative politics is now off limits? Only Labour is allowed to stray on to right wing territory now, and then merely with a view to calming down adverse criticism. They actually do nothing. We should stick two fingers up to the current illiberal parody of liberalism and assert our views vigorously. Courage attracts support, not cowardly compromise.
Posted by: Simon Denis | July 26, 2007 at 01:54 PM