| |
|
|
John Kampfner tells Labour to stop the silly stunts
Monday 28th March 2005
Labour's problem is its core support. The danger, according to the polls and the focus groups, remains a refusal to vote rather than a switch to the Tories. By John Kampfner.
Every schoolboy or girl is told to stand up to the bully. Give in
once, and they will come back for more. It is a lesson that for the
best part of a decade Tony Blair and many around him seemed unable
to comprehend. Is that now changing? I merely ask...
One of the myths
of new Labour is that it was clever at managing the media. It won over
those it believed mattered, through flattery and favours. As Piers
Morgan's memoirs point out, there was nothing the Prime Minister would
not do to ingratiate himself with red-top proprietors and editors.
There was no dinner at Chequers he would not invite them to, or story
that Alastair Campbell would not offer them on a silver salver. For
a time it worked. The Mail's grudging support lasted about a year.
The Express's enthusiastic support lasted about five. The Sun's nominal
support remains, but is offset by a news agenda that is overwhelmingly
hostile.
In terms of Blair's credibility and the government's ultimate
purpose, the approach was self-defeating. Compromises made in the run-up
to the 1997 election were understandable. There is nothing pernicious
in courting editors or keeping a close eye on newspaper campaigns.
But Blair's error was to turn an occasional necessary evil into a
strategy. He allowed the power relationship to be inverted and became
the supplicant. Meanwhile, his people berated left-liberals for daring
to suggest that the glass should be more than half full, that the
government could and should be more courageous in pursuing an agenda
based on liberal values and social justice. He indulged journalists
on the right, while urging journalists on the left to show more "responsibility" -
a responsibility several refused to show when exposing the decisions
that led to the folly of war in Iraq. Underlying the appeasement
of the tabloids was Blair's own grim assessment of the nature of
British society. There is, in his view, only so much a national leader
can do to change deeply held beliefs and prejudices. To paraphrase
the late former Labour home secretary Roy Jenkins, he did not think
he could change the political weather. The best that could be achieved
was to instill incremental reforms in the face of the prevailing
view.
The psephology of the current campaign may, for the first time,
work against Blair's assumptions. The apparent success of Conservative
tactics in the early skirmishes has not changed the fundamental task
facing Labour. Its problem is its core support. The danger, according
to focus-group evidence and public opinion polls, remains a refusal
to vote rather than a switch to the Tories.
The government's response
to Michael Howard's guerrilla attacks has been mixed. Early on, it
panicked over asylum and immigration. But it has not tried to match
him in his sudden indignation towards gypsies or sudden concern about
abortion. I am not one who takes the view that certain subjects are
out of bounds in election campaigns, or that newspapers are wrong
to campaign on certain issues. It is, however, the job of confident
governments to rise above the fray. They still have ample outlets,
particularly in the broadcasting media, to project reasoned arguments.
It was encouraging therefore to hear Des Browne trying to do that
in a Today programme debate on immigration, and Yvette Cooper adopting
a similarly measured approach in a Newsnight discussion on travellers.
The
confluence of issues such as asylum, immigration, terrorism and east
European enlargement in the minds of the public cannot be ignored.
The politics of insecurity is, as I saw from my discussions with
voters in Yorkshire and the east Midlands, high on their list of
concerns. And yet there is also evidence to suggest the accusation
of opportunism against Howard is beginning to resonate and that voters
are not seduced by promises of quick fixes.
Gordon Brown's Budget
on 16 March was intended to kick-start a more uplifting Labour campaign.
The botched photo-call the following day, highlighting the supposed £35bn
Tory cuts, set back those efforts, but there will be ample opportunity
in coming weeks to compare economic performance and policies.
The
public mood does seem aggrieved. The message might be inchoate; it
might often be irrational; but much of it is recoverable, as long
as Blair and those running the election turn to more positive campaigning.
Strategists
spurned a golden opportunity during the launch of the mini-manifesto
on children on 21 March. Instead of focusing on the impressive record
on alleviating child poverty, Labour devoted its energies to a silly
stunt with Jamie Oliver on school meals. They would do well to heed
the advice of Douglas Alexander, one of the few senior ministers
to straddle the Blair-Brown divide. He has identified the task facing
Labour: to shift public opinion "consciously
and irrevocably towards its own vision of a good society".
This article first appeared in the New
Statesman and may not be reproduced
without permission.
|
|
|
|
|