PTSD in Political Parties

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is pretty well recognised in humans; I think it also happens in political parties. In fact, I think it is one of the reasons why the dominant political discourse in our country is so anondyne. In the past 20 years, both of the dominant political parties in this country have had PTSD.

For Labour, it hit them in 1992 when Neil Kinnock managed to snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory. The party had already changed – it had moved to the centre from the alarmingly leftist Labour party of 1983. But it still hadn’t won – despite facing a tired government led by a weak-willed PM. At that point, the party changed. The desire to win became everything. And that led to the gutting of any real ideology. It led to the election of Tony Blair as party leader. The rest is now, mercifully, history.

For the Tories, it probably hit about the time they decided to concur with what just about everyone else was telling them – that IDS was an utter disaster as a leader. Their PTSD took a little longer to fully manifest itself, though. Of course, that manifestation is embodied in the incumbent Prime Minister – a man who dragged the Tory party to the centre ground and away from any controversial opinions or positions whatsoever. He gutted the Tory party just as surely as Blair did for Labour.

And herein lies the problem – both Cameron and Blair have gone on to get the top job in British politics, whereas many of their predecessors as party leaders did not come close. And that is what tends to silence the ideological critics in both of their parties – it is pretty difficult to argue with success. So we can trace the impact of debilitating events such as the 1992 General Election defeat for the Labour party and the failure of the IDS leadership for the Tories through to the eventual return to success – but at the price of shedding much of the ideology that made the different parties distinct in the first place. Success – but at what price?

Don’t get me wrong, an election defeat is a clear indicator for a political party that something needs to change, and the answer is seldom a superficial change like a new leader. This is a lesson that the Labour party – post-2010 – has still yet to learn. Yet the extent to which a party changes is the crucial issue; recent politics gives us two examples of political parties who sold their souls for a chance for electoral glory. They gave into the panic of PTSD, and lost their way as a result.

So what hope do we have that parties can start to take defeats – a natural part of any engagement in a democratic political process – as a reason for change, but not a mad dash from ideological commitments to the centre ground? Well, Blair is utterly discredited and a strong candidate for the dubious title of Worst Prime Minister in Living Memory (along with his successor as PM). And while Blair – for all of his flaws – did win a stunning victory in 1997, Cameron is only in power through a coalition with the Lib Dems. Labour gained 145 seats in 1997, the Tories 97 in 2010. The law of diminishing returns seems to be rearing its head for those party leaders who choose success over political commitments.

So my point is this – any defeat is difficult for a party to take. Any failure to be returned to power or to win an election is potentially traumatic. But the key thing is how parties deal with that trauma. Gutting yourself in order to win next time or the time after that is undeniably one option, but there are others – the options that allow a party to both win and lose at the next election, but to do so with dignity.

Ed Miliband's Credibility Gap

One of Miliband Minor’s biggest problems is in how he comes across. In order to be an effective party leader, you have to look like a credible (future) Prime Minister. Unfortunately the leader of the Labour party looks like Mr Potato Head trying to be stern. Which, in all honesty, is not ideal in a potential PM.

Other party leaders have managed this effortlessly. Despite being an odious cretin, Blair’s natural sense of self-worth meant he always appeared to be comfortable in his own skin and therefore, at least on some levels, was a very credible candidate for the highest office in this land. Cameron has a similar vibe; while being the very definition of lightweight when it comes to policy, he has a certain gravitas that made him look like a credible candidate for Prime Minister even before he walked over the threshold into Number 10 this summer.

Other party leaders may have had this gravitas at some point in their careers, only to completely lose it. Thatcher would be the best example of this. In 1987 she not only looked credible as Prime Minister, she also came across as an absolute natural in the role. She appeared confident, controlled and demanded respect. By 1990, she had completely lost the plot and looked like a mad old woman who was a liability both to her party and to the country. She had it, she lost it.

Of course, the success of a party leader at looking Prime Ministerial is dependent to some extent on who they are facing. Hence in 1992 Major looked the most Prime Ministerial; by 1997, this was no longer the case. What changed? Well, the 1992-1997 parliament was bruising for Major, but that was not the main cause of the change in the way he appeared. Put simply, in 1997 he was up against Tony Blair at the height of his smarmy charm. In 1992, he was up against Neil Kinnock – a man (like Michael Howard in many respects) who was an extremely capable politician in many ways, but never ever really looked or sounded like someone you would want to put in charge of the country.

It is possible to pull the wool over the eyes of many and appear Prime Ministerial when in fact you aren’t. This is what Brown managed in the years leading up to 2007. Of course, he managed to do this by staying out of the political limelight as much as possible and certainly not letting the Great British public know what he was really like under any circumstances. That strategy simply isn’t open to a Leader of the Opposition – their role is arguably one of the most high-profile in British politics and hiding away won’t work. Just ask IDS.

And that is the problem Ed Miliband has. He can’t hide away and hope for the best; he has to engage with the public. He’s up against a Prime Minister who is managing to remain detached from the more unpopular policies of his government at the same time as exuding a certain quiet confidence in his new role. And there doesn’t appear to be any danger of Miliband suddenly gaining gravitas in the near future. He is likely to remain an extremely awkward figure who struggles to communicate effectively.

Of course, you can argue that it shouldn’t matter how politicians come across – that the choice of who leads this country should be down to policies and ideas. And to some extent you’d be right. But the problem is that so much of modern politics is down to appearance and the project image of politicians. And that’s why Miliband Minor is struggling, and is likely to fail. Quite simply, he doesn’t look like a Prime Minister in waiting.

Kinnock and the Electoral X Factor

Neil Kinnock has announced who he's backing in the Labour leadership contest - it is Ed of the Milibands. Apparently Miliband Minor...

"...has got the X-Factor, especially where the X is the sign you put on the voting slip at election time"

Ooo, get Kinnock and his painfully crass attempts to appear with it by using a contemporary cultural references. Bet he's well up to speed with popular music and everything.

But the irony of Neil "We're alright!" Kinnock - who led his party to two humbling defeats at the polls - advising his party on who has for the electoral X-Factor is almost too much to cope with. Kinnock should stick to his area of expertise (whatever that might be) - advising the party he helped to keep out of office for nearly a decade on electability is not credible, even for a second.

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.

Cameron: Get Ready For Power

In a year's time, I am confident that I will be writing this blog under a Tory government. I don't doubt that Cameron is Prime Minister in waiting, and that the Tory electoral policy should just be "steady as she goes".

However, Cameron needs to be careful and the lessons of history - in particular the mistakes of Tony Blair in the run up to 1997 - need to be heeded. The fact he is going to win shouldn't stop him from doing the hard work now to ensure that his transition to power is as painless and as effective as possible. This involves thinking about and dealing with a number of different issues and potential problems. Namely:

Work out why he's seeking power

Blair pissed away the whole of his first term, when he was at the very height of his political powers, because he never worked out why he ran for power. He was very effective in opposition, using the simple logic that he wasn't the Tories. However, once he had got into power, he had no agenda. Consequently, he basically had nothing to show for his first four years in power. 

Cameron's time in Opposition has been light on policy as well. Yeah, yeah, I know that he argues any policies will be stolen by the Labour party, but even if he doesn't announce exact details of what he is planing to do until he publishes his manifesto, he needs to work out exactly what he is going to do when he is power now. After he has become Prime Minister, it will be too late. He needs to work out what the Tories and what Prime Minister Cameron will be now. 

Work out who is who

Cameron needs to decide who is going to be in his first Cabinet as soon as possible, and also start getting them used to the idea. Take George Osborne. If he is going to be Chancellor, then fine. If he isn't, then Cameron needs to start managing Osborne's expectations from now until the election. And so on, for everyone who might feel they have a right to a place in the Cabinet after the 2010 General Election. 

He also needs to work out who his enemies are. Who is going to rock the boat for him, and what is he going to do about them? He's not going to be able to control everyone, and he isn't going to be able to neuter all of his enemies. But knowing who they are now will at least remove the element of surprise, and will allow him to plan for the problems. There is no space for complacency. His party may be united at the moment, but history shows that the Tories aren't great at staying united for long. Particularly not in power. 

Finally, he should work out who is going to embarrass him. Who's corrupt? Who's been fucking around? Who is going to be the News of the World headline? Maybe he can't protect the people in his party, but it may impact his choices of who works closely with him and who is in his Cabinet if he knows now who's going to be a headache later along the line. 

Prepare for a hung Parliament

I think the Tories will win outright. Yet, they have a large Labour majority to overturn, so he needs to consider what he will do if he doesn't win a large majority or if there is a hung Parliament. Part of this will be working out how he can put together a majority if there aren't enough Tory MPs to do so, and what he would be willing to sacrifice to say... get a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. 

And he needs to have a strategy on what he does if he has a small or no majority in the longer-term. Taking a look at Harold Wilson's first term as PM might help. Wilson won a tiny majority in 1964. In 1966 he was able to turn it into a majority of 96. If Cameron finds himself in the same position as Wilson did in 1964, then he should quickly implement some uncontroversial, popular legislation and give people enough time to start to see him as the Prime Minister. Then he should go to the country, and hope for the best. Hanging on too long will mean more compromise and a decline in popularity. Of course, another election in 2011 or 2012 might not work, as Wilson found in 1974. However, minority governments just don't work in the long term in this country. And Cameron should do everything in his power to get a working majority as soon as he can. Even if the voters don't give him one next year. 

Prepare for a landslide

A landslide is a possibility for Cameron, according to some recent polls. And if that happens then he needs to be ready to be bold, and get the most difficult and the most problematic parts of his manifesto passed as soon as possible. If he has to do something controversial (sweeping spending cuts spring to mind) then he needs to do it in his honeymoon period with his large majority as soon as possible after he becomes PM. PM's don't tend to get more popular - at best, he can hope to maintain his popularity. But it is no good waiting years to start building a legacy as Tony Blair did. In the event of a large majority, Cameron needs to exploit whatever goodwill he has to implement what he believes to be right. 

Which makes it even more important that he works out who he is and what he stands for now. 

Don't be complacent

I think Cameron will win. All the indicators point to a Tory victory. Yet... in 1992, Labour were going to win. Kinnock was going to be Prime Minister. Cue the Sheffield Victory Rally, and John Major winning the largest number of votes in UK history. Until the votes are cast, and the fat twunt is out of Parliament, Cameron still needs to fight. The chances of the Tories losing are negligible. Nonetheless, there is still a chance, and Cameron needs to make sure he continues to fight for power until he wins it. 

***

Make no mistake about this, I don't like Cameron. I'm not a Tory, and don't particularly relish the idea of the coming Tory government. But I think it is best for the whole country if we don't end up with another wet behind the ears, out of depth Prime Minister as we did in 1997. Cameron is poised to become our Prime Minister. He needs to ready for the awesome responsibility he is going to take on, and using the next few months wisely will help to make him ready. 

President Tony

Don't make me laugh. Bitterly:

Tony Blair is a contender to become the first president of the EU with the full backing of the British government, the new Europe minister said today.

Yeah. That's just what we need. The grinning, preening cunt who we offloaded as PM a few years ago back as President of the largely unaccountable EU. That would be Blair's revenge. The political equivalent of Blair pissing on the British people from the lofty heights of the EU.

Still, good old Glenys Kinnock still comes up with some wonderfully idiotic statements:

"Blair is seen by many as someone who has the strength of character, the stature," Kinnock said.

"People know who he is, and he would be someone who would have this role and step into it with a lot of respect and I think would be generally welcomed."

Blair has the strength of character that you might associate with a jellyfish with a spinal disorder. And any respect, any goodwill that Blair might once have had from the EU was spunked away when he decided to side with the moronic George W Bush rather than Europe over Iraq. If Kinnock genuinely thinks that Blair would be welcomed by the British people, the EU or by the Blair-hating Brown government, then she is even more delusional that on the day she said "I do" when stood next to that graceless ginger wanker. 

Still, we shouldn't under-estimate the ability of the EU to be contrary, and give a position of power to a washed up old political leader from a member state. But this could be the time for the EU to stand up and be counted. It is the time for the EU to show that it does have some ability, some political savvy, and some use. And it could do all that in one moment - by telling Tony Blair to go fuck himself. 

John Major

Recently read a (mercifully short) biography of John Major, and the summary for it was that he wasn't as bad as he appeared at the time. Which, in spite of leaning towards the Tories politically, I would strongly disagree with.

I think that a lot of the criticisms of Major at the time were brutal and needlessly personal - such as the famous story, most probably from the odious prig Alastair Campbell, that Major tucked his shirts into his underpants. That sort of thing has no bearing on whether Major was a decent Premier or not and given, if memory serves, Campbell was once arrested stark bollock naked and pissed out of his tiny little mind is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Also, a lot of the problems encountered by Major were out of his control. He couldn't help it if Aitken decided to fight a court battle even though Aitken knew he was in the wrong. He couldn't help it if Neil Hamilton had accepted bribes from Al-Fayed. He couldn't help it if Mellor, Yeo et al all failed to keep their winkies in their trousers* and he certainly could not help it if Stephen Milligan decided to shuffle off this mortal coil in a highly idio-syncratic way. Also, his victory in the 1992 General Election was nothing short of spectacular (although a lot of that may have been fear of the Welsh Windbag).

But aside from that, he did not really achieve anything. He totally failed to unite his party - the argument that no-one else could have done does not change the fact that he still failed to do this. In 1997 he handed Blair a landslide election victory, virtually gift-wrapped. And the ERM debacle was entirely Major's fault - not least because he forced Thatcher to take Britain into it in the first place. The economic upturn enjoyed by the UK towards the end of the Major administration only occurred because we were free of having to conform to the pointless and counter-productive measures of the ERM - and leaving the ERM was most definitely not the policy of Prime Minister Major.

I am sure Major is an amiable chap - a little wet, but good-hearted and well-meaning. But as a Prime Minister he was a failure, and this rose-tinted retrospective move to praising him when he was pretty much despised whilst in office worries me. Not because I have any issue with Major now being seen as OK, but because I am terrified that in a few years people will have a rose-tinted view of Blair, rather than seeing him as the incompetent, mendacious piece of excremental filth that he undeniably is.

*Although Major launching Back To Basics when he had been knobbing Edwina Currie was perhaps an error of judgement and could have proved to be very costly for Major had it come out when he was in No. 10.