Why the 1992 model won't work for Labour

It is clearly in vogue for the Labour party to cite the 1992 General Election as a model for how they are going to win next year. I can understand why; an apparently unpopular government managed to beat a resurgent opposition convincingly. I've already commented on whether the Labour Party should want to win the next election or not; but there is a far more pressing problem for the Labour Party in using the 1992 election as a model. Put simply, it isn't going to work for them.

The Guardian neatly sums up how the Labour leadership think this plan could work:

Seventeen years ago, the election was fought with the economy in much the same state as it is today. The economy was suffering its second recession in a decade and unemployment was close to 3 million. Business failures and house repossessions were at record levels.

Yet, somehow, the Conservatives managed to shift attention away from their own record and on to the threat that Kinnock posed in terms of higher taxes and interest rates.

Brown, Darling and Mandelson clearly believe that history will repeat itself. From now until polling day, whatever the economic news, the message will be the same – cling on to nurse for fear of something worse.

The above is largely accurate - at least in terms of how the 1992 election played out. Yet it won't work for Labour next time out for a number of reasons:

• Gordon Brown isn't John Major. John Major - for all his flaws - always managed to come across as a likable man. To a large extent, he was the friendly face of Conservatism. He came across as humble, unpretentious and lacking in arrogance. Whereas Gordon Brown comes across as appallingly arrogant and as a bully. He represents the darker side of Labour that puts a lot of people off. John Major was an electoral asset for his party in 1992; Brown certainly won't be an asset for his party in 2010.
• David Cameron isn't Neil Kinnock. Kinnock was a loudmouth with a tendency to shoot from the hip. He had the unerringly ability to put his foot squarely in his mouth, and lacked the discipline to present a coherent public facade. He was also an odd looking ginger man. Whilst that shouldn't be important, it obviously is in the media driven world of modern politics. Cameron - ignoring his massive forehead and ongoing issues with puppy fat - is far more photogenic than Kinnock. Furthermore, his ongoing refusal to say pretty much anything means he is able to avoid the controversies that used to dog Kinnock. Cameron is a political professional in an era where you need to be a political professional to win an election; Kinnock wasn't, which contributed to his second defeat in 1992.
• Major's soapbox campaign really helped him appear both humble to the public and interesting to the media. It was a gimmick, to be sure. But it was also a gimmick that worked. There does not seem to be anything similar coming from the Labour party, and it is hard to imagine the ever arrogant Brown embracing anything that doesn't make him look 100% Prime Ministerial. Brown won't be getting on his soapbox; he sees himself as above such things.
• The Tories are avoiding being triumphalist about the next election, and are not treating it as a dead cert. This was not the case with Labour in 1992. Sheffield "Victory" rally, anyone?
• Major had a credible reason to be Prime Minister in 1992. The last Tory leader had alienated the public with the poll tax and her own party with her stance on Europe. She had to be replaced, and Major fought a contest to succeed her. He won that contest over two other key players in the Tory party. Compare that with Gordon Brown. He came to power not because Blair needed to be replaced, but simply because Brown wanted his turn at being Prime Minister and was sick of waiting for Blair to go. He didn't fight a leadership contest; he simply arranged to be crowned as Labour leader. Major was the choice of his MPs to be PM in 1992, and could point to the leadership contest in 1990 as giving at least some validity to his place in Number 10. Brown cannot do the same. The only person who choose Gordon Brown as Prime Minister was Gordon himself.
• In 1992, Major had recently been part of the successful coalition in Gulf War I. Whilst Labour have had no problem with getting us into wars, they have had problems making those campaigns successful (or even properly equipped). Major went into the 1992 election as a victorious war leader; Brown will go into the next election as a leader who denies this country's soldiers the equipment they need not just to win, but to survive.
• The media largely remained on the Tories' side in 1992. The same cannot be said for Labour at the moment, and I can see a lot of media outlets will not be sticking with them at the next election even if they have done for the past three contests.

There are other reasons, but I won't labour the point. However it is striking that the Labour party now has to look to a Tory victory over 15 years ago in order to get any sort of an idea of how they could win the next General Election. Further proof that the Labour party is devoid of ideas, inspiration and anything that may assist them in making a credible case to continue to be the government of this country.