By the very nature of their status, opposition parties everywhere have a delicate balancing act to perform: how to convey the impression of being a government-in-waiting all the while keeping public attention focused firmly on the actual government’s shortcomings without appearing either overly strident or merely opposing measures for the sake of opposing without presenting coherent policy alternatives.
Contemporary history is full of examples whereby opposition parties get their emphasis wrong and are perceived by the electorate as perpetually being a party of perpetual naysayers without practical policies (i.e. the US Democratic party from 1980 – 1992 endlessly advocating a ‘liberal’ high tax, high spending agenda woefully out of tune with the moderate electorate) or the ineffective, muddleheaded message of the Singapore Workers’ Party, which in 2011 campaigned essentially as ‘the <ruling> People’s Action Party, with more compassion.’
The (Loyal) opposition in every democracy or pseudo democracy must present itself as an entity with a clear, coherent governing vision, viable policies, and competent potential ministers (or cabinet secretaries if one is in the US).
The task becomes all the more challenging in countries such as Venezuela where the government is dictatorial in nature and frequently harnesses the full powers of the state in harassing, jailing, suing, or even perpetrating bodily harm on anyone who even voices dissent against their fiat.
No such extreme confronts the British Labour Party as its members set out to dethrone Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives. What it is burdened with are issues of profound negative perception caused by the very public airing of internal dissent (between the Tony Blairite centrists and the union-backed left currently in charge) and, the continued relentless denigration by the mainstream Rupert Murdoch-controlled press of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. So savage and relentless have been these attacks (personal gibes on his appearance, attire and demeanour mixed in with fear-mongering that the party’s manifesto would take Britain back to the high unemployment, high interest rate-plagued 1970’s), that they have all but implied that a vote for Corbyn is an endorsement for leftist anarchy.
Small wonder then that, ever since his unexpected yet decisive victory in the party’s September 2015 leadership elections -- he won with 59.5% of party members’ support -- and his beating back of a tepid leadership challenge (gaining 61.8%), Corbyn has seen his personal popularity ratings sag to a pint where Theresa May’s positive ratings were double, almost triple, his. Thus, it was no surprise that the Tories chose to frame the contest as one of personalities rather than policy (of which the Labour Party manifesto has received more positive reviews than), adopting an electoral strategy much more in line with an American presidential contest’s than a traditional British contest.
In retrospect, this may have been a serious error, and that’s because while voters may indeed perceive May as a more sober and experienced leader, there is an intangible at play which could well serve to undermine such a leader-centric campaign: likability.
With her reputation of buttoned-down messaging, technocratic competence and penchant for control, May is the type of politician who looks as if she would rather be anywhere but around real flesh-and-blood voters. She may indeed be perfectly nice in private life and a bit reserved in public but the Tories seem to be running a play-it-safe front runner’s campaign, keeping her locked away, only letting her out briefly to repeat tightly-scripted robotic mantras. A “strong and stable” government has been repeated by her so often in speeches that it seems to have become a meme.
In football (or soccer), this kind of tactic would be referred to as parking the bus: don’t worry too much about scoring or getting into the opposition’s half of the field, just don’t mess up.
Ask Hillary Clinton how that strategy worked against Donald Trump.
For his part, Corbyn is actually likable (i.e. a viewing of his pre-leadership victory interview with Owen Jones on YouTube reveals him to be a quiet, inspirational man, hardly a stereotypical “loony leftie” he once was when younger). He may not be the greatest orator, sometimes stressing the wrong word in a sentence or stumbling over his teleprompter and he may not deliver media-managed soundbites with the ease that the PM does, but he is good with the public, and projects a very real sense of personality.
In contrast to May, Corbyn is most at ease when talking to real people. He is, at heart, a rebel campaigner. Since coming to Parliament in 1983, he’s been on the right side of history but out of step with contemporary public opinion. Whether on apartheid, LGBT rights, race relations or the Iraq war, Corbyn is very used to taking up positions that are not popular, then arguing for them and waiting patiently until they are. He has never lacked for quiet courage, never fearing to tread his own path.
His style of leadership is one that appears to welcome open debate and dissent: “Whereas insecure leaders want to feel stronger by asking you to give them more power, I recognise strong leadership as equipping you with more power.” This is in marked contrast to the current prime minister, whose control focus leads her chiefs of staff occasionally acting more like policemen and watchdogs over ministers and MPs then managing her agenda or schedule.
For a while Corbyn’s handlers tried to have him emulate May and leverage on the conventional wisdom that, in order for him to become prime minister, he must appear ‘prime ministerial’. For a while he started babbling jargon about “fully costed programmes”, and espousing ‘Tory-lite’ commitments to adding 10,000 police constables to combat crime (as opposed to dealing with root causes like social class and racial alienation); Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, started trying to sound ministerial, spouting numbers which made no sense and sounded even less convincing; Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, appeared clownish, even uninformed about her own policies when attempting faux gravitas. Corbyn was stuck between a microphone and a brick wall. Conventional does not work for him. Pretending to be the next prime minister does not work, nor even pretending to be Labour leader. Watching Jeremy Corbyn as “not Theresa May” is like recalling Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock trying to be “not Margaret Thatcher” or “Thatcher lite.”
To be blunt, politicians seem to believe that voters give a damn how much a policeman costs or how much corporation tax equals how many doctors etc etc. Neither are they so naïve to believe that party manifestos aren’t choc-a-bloc full of reckless promises not believed by electors yet weighing on future chancellors like albatrosses. In fact, much like the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) in the United States, in a responsible democracy such policies should be vetted by a nonpartisan body, and carry a health warning slapped on their shiny covers: “believable only within the boundaries of available resources”. Party platforms are the tabloid news of elections (go back and tick off your own ruling party’s promises from the last election. Do the trains now run on time? Is it cheaper to buy everyday goods in stores? Do you feel safer from crime or terrorism? Do you feel better about your prospects and that of your children?
The most resonant message of the new politics is not that personality matters -- we know that -- but that, if mismanaged, it can obliterate party loyalty (The Donald proved that in 2016 when he won more Latino and black votes than 2012’s GOP nominee Mitt Romney). Tony Blair won elections for Labour by being himself, by being “not Labour”. Labour lost when it presented implausible leaders such as Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, none of whom were able to project their true personalities against practiced opponents like Thatcher and David Cameron. The Tories likewise lost with weak ones -- William Hague and Michael Howard -- and did not even risk Iain Duncan Smith, all competent, yet bland to the point of boiled carrots.
Globally, traditional party loyalty is collapsing as voters become more aware of their power and regard politics as transactional. The share of the vote of winning parties across Europe has plummeted. In Britain Labour and the Tories took 97% in the 1950s, and it’s barely 60% today. As Ukip and Brexit have shown, sentences beginning “I always vote … ” have gone the way of the dinosaurs. In the recent French election, traditional party support structures completely disintegrated. Half the vote went to explicitly anti-establishment candidates, and Emmanuel Macron has no party at all. In November, an estimated 10% of Bernie Sanders’ primary supporters switched to Donald Trump, apparently because they liked his anti-establishment stance.
This is the real disruption faced by the elites today. It’s not only about technology or industry. It’s about the way people think. Stop taking us for granted, is the message. Stop treating us like children. Give us what we want, or we will take our business elsewhere. In this atmosphere, no ruling party is safe. As with Trump, Macron, and even Justin Trudeau (who led his party from third place to a massive majority government) change can come out of nowhere.
This is the familiar narrative of the new politics. Voters like individuality, authenticity, directness. In British terms, they warmed (for a while) to Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Alex Salmond: politicians who seemed plain-speaking, uncliched, sincere, funny -- even if in reality they were not. Voters no longer seek a champion of their interest but a mix of qualities. One thing they do like is someone with whom they could share a barbeque or an elevator. It’s the “my kinda guy” test.
In selecting Corbyn, the Labour party members chose a leftwing rebel, a nuclear disarmer and antiwar campaigner. They chose a bearded, cardigan-wearing, cycling-helmeted urbanite with a deep hatred of money, power and privilege. He was never going to bond with his parliamentary colleagues. He was never going to unite the Labour party in the same way Blair or the great Clement Atlee did. They still chose him.
For a nation that has grown used to politicians of all sides working from the same political playbook, Corbyn genuinely offers something different. He is a politician who isn’t driven by ego and ambition but instead by a desire to improve the lives of British people. He’s a ‘Star Trek’ idealistic optimist with a ‘Star Wars’ rebel sheen (mixing metaphors badly).
Even when a set agenda is laid out for him, there’s a danger of him dropping being the politician and drifting into being human. At the weekend he also visited Battersea in south London and spoke to the party faithful and the media. One woman asked him a pre-arranged question about rights for renters and, much to the chagrin of his handlers, after answering he decided to chat with her about her life, how her work as a psychologist was going and what her views on mental health care were.
Recently, Corbyn gave a “barnburning” speech in Church House, Westminster which was pure Bernie Sanders. He thundered against the rich, the few and an establishment who “wrote their own rules”. He derided the “rigged system”, whatever that was, and the Tory-controlled press. He invoked Keir Hardie. His performance was promise-rich and policy-free: irresponsible, wild and wholly at one with his audience.
It was politics at its most visceral, raw, unfiltered and passionate.
And it may be working.
Just prior to the Manchester suicide bombing, a shock poll showed that Labour was a mere five (5) points behind the Conservatives nationally (38% of decided voters vs. 43%). If true, then Corbyn would have cut May’s lead by an incredible fifteen per cent. A change of just six to eight seats with Labour losing none will cost May her majority, and very likely, her prime ministership. May’s favourables are still ahead of Corbyn’s (and have improved since the attacks) but nowhere as domineering as at the start of the campaign. He is still likely to lose on June 8th, but it may not be the crushing defeat the Conservatives and the establishment so badly want. The results may cause some global instability, but this would result in dialogue, consensus building and debate -- what democracies should strive for.
Corbyn should forget about what he would do in power or what it says in his manifesto. Go for it, all out and campaign as the man he is. Stand for moral outrage, nuclear disarmament and an end to “stupid” neo-imperial wars (as Barack Obama has put it). Attack CEO salaries, crazy energy subsidies which make no sense and vanity infrastructure projects which are nothing more than institutionalized corruption. Promote universal incomes, prison reform and drug legalization.
In a world that values seeming decisiveness over debate (just how decisive have men on horseback like Trump and Rodrigo Duterte been?) and pines for simple answers to complex questions, it remains to be seen whether Corbyn’s personality will shine through the media chaff, and connect.
At the end of the day, one recalls the Trump supporter who openly disagreed with everything Trump said but explained: “He’s just my kind of guy.” Cheer or jeer, these are the people who now win elections.
Corbyn should let it all rip.