“Keep it plausible, darling.” Those were the words Tony Blair uttered to his long-time advisor, Anji Hunter, after she had suggested his now infamous speech to the Women’s Institute – where he was slow-clapped by a bunch of seemingly kindly ladies – had, interruption aside, still gone rather well.
Plausibility is key to any political statement, especially in the form of a political attack. That is why Blair’s criticisms of a succession of Conservative opposition leaders were, as he noted in his autobiography, A Journey, fairly low energy.
John Major was weak, William Hague better at jokes than judgement, Michael Howard an opportunist and David Cameron a flip-flop (apologies for the Iain Duncan Smith erasure). Blair wrote:
“Any one of those charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders at those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument.”
David Cameron and George Osborne understood much of this. The ‘Cameroon’ project was grounded in a barely concealed – if facsimile in nature – attempt to replicate the Blair approach, whom they often called “the master”.
The charges Cameron made against Ed Miliband, that the Labour leader ‘stabbed his brother in the back’ and would be in the pocket of Alex Salmond, were politically damaging because, unfairly or not, they struck a cord – in part by eschewing hyperbole.
Today’s Conservative Party has long given up on the art of the plausible. Rishi Sunak is still claiming that Keir Starmer would have the country in lockdown right now. While Tory Party Chair Nadhim Zahawi suggested today that the Leader of the Opposition “cannot or will not stand up to his union mates“ and that the strikes are “Labour’s nightmare before Christmas”.
Now, putting aside the fact that the RMT disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 2004 – no normal person knows or cares about that. What voters will understand is that Labour is not in government, Starmer has said some vaguely critical things about the strikes, and the economy is in a mess because of Liz Truss’s mini-budget (again, a simplification but tough luck.)
There are reasonable attacks the Tories could try out on the Labour leader that might chime with persuadable voters. For example, will Starmer, a guy who three years ago was recommending the British people make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, say anything to get elected? What exactly would Labour do on strikes? How will it fund its £28bn-a-year green capital plan when its policies on non-doms and private schools will raise precious little?
But instead, the Tories are going for cheap, over-the-top claims. Much like our wages, the effect is inflationary and to debase any grain of truth the attack might contain. Put another way: keep it plausible, Nadhim.
Elsewhere in the paper, Comment Editor Robbie Smith has written a delicious review of Matt Hancock’s Pandemic Diaries: a man with strengths and weaknesses but who ultimately loves the limelight.
In the comment pages, Emily Sheffield wonders who on earth would want to be born into the Royal Family? Although having said that, Vicky Jessop can’t wait to go home for Christmas, to enjoy such luxuries as having the heating on. While I pay tribute to the Oliver Girouds and Harry Kanes of the world, and wonder why we seem to favour teenage superstars over late developers.
And finally, Hamish Macbain takes no prisoners in his list of words and phrases of 2022 that need, to coin a phrase, go away and shut up. Starting with: ‘the real me’.
Have a lovely weekend.
