Wanted: a British leader who sees the world as voters see it
|
Version 0 of 1. Nothing that has happened in the opening days shakes the view that this election will turn on economic confidence and political leadership. Most of the early skirmishes have been about the former. Last night, in the seven-party leaders’ debate, it was the turn of the latter. What has been shaken, however, is the assumption about how these issues would play. For months, the Conservatives have assumed that both would work in their favour. That may indeed prove true in the end. But it doesn’t feel that way at this early stage. A week in, it is Labour who are feeling chipper about the early salvoes, even affecting pleasure at the massed ranks of business backers for the Conservatives on Wednesday. Conversely it is the Tories who are already getting tetchy. There may not be many facts to support either mood, but if Thursday night’s debate fails to shift it, a serious Tory wobble may not be long in coming. Thoughtful Conservatives are honest about the problem they face. In a typically incisive Times column last weekend, Matthew Parris confessed that while voters rate David Cameron’s competence and don’t rate that of Ed Miliband, there is something about the Tory party that “really p****s the British people off”. The economy may be recovering, he continued, yet there remains something that sticks in many people’s craw about voting Conservative. That has been true before, yet the party has triumphed in the end. “Shy Tories” were a familiar subset of the electorate in the 1980s. But there is no iron law that says we live in similar times today. Parris identified two causes of the Tories’ stuck craw syndrome. The first is class resentment of a party of the toffs. The second, a suspicion that the Tories themselves are not very nice or sympathetic people. How, he concluded, can Cameron deal with this problem in the weeks leading up to polling day? How indeed? The toff factor is out there, wormed into people’s minds. We overlook how odd it is, more than half a century after the last time, to be governed by a Conservative prime minister who went to one of the most privileged private schools in the land. There is nothing Cameron can do about his background. But he could do more to stop people noticing it. This used to be part of his skill set. But somewhere along the line since 2010 he has lost either the instinct or the will. Countering the suspicion that Tories are not very nice or sympathetic perhaps offers more possibilities. There are lots of nice Tories around, including the one who knocked on my door canvassing yesterday morning. But it feels as if Cameron doesn’t really care much there either. If he did, he would have done something before now. A party that showcases Grant Shapps and Eric Pickles for media interviews is one to which self-awareness does not come naturally. The US Republican campaigner Brett O’Donnell, interviewed on Radio 4, said that voters want to know three things about a party leader: that they are competent, that they share your values and that they are likeable. It sounds simple. But it isn’t. Just think about this country’s premier league politicians. Many of them have one of the virtues. A few possess two. There are not many who score on all three counts. Of the current crop Cameron probably scrapes a pass grade on competence, but he is shaky on shared values and he relies over-much on a likeability that not everyone feels. Miliband struggles on competence – the bungled Manchester speech or the many failures summed up in Fraser Nelson’s remark, quoted in Tim Bale’s new book on the Labour leader, that Miliband consistently fails to throw a second punch. He grinds it out on likeability (he’s not disliked, but people find him strange), though he scores well on shared values. Nick Clegg is pretty good on values and likeability (the Miriam factor helps a lot here) but he fell at Becher’s Brook first time round on competence and probably ought to have been put down. Of the others who matter, Nigel Farage was absent without leave when the gods were handing out competence, but in his own niche way he knows how to work the saloon bar on shared values and likeability. The real winner on O’Donnell’s report card approach, though, is Nicola Sturgeon, who exudes competence, scores strongly on shared values (as long as you are a Scot), and who, having shaken off the earlier pejorative “nippy sweetie” tag of which David Torrance writes in his new biography, is nowadays is making a serious effort to come over as likeable. Yet O’Donnell omits a key fourth quality. One of the most valuable virtues in modern politics, especially amid the decline of large parties and the growth of individualism, is the ability to give the impression that you can see the world from the other person’s point of view. It is priceless, because it acknowledges that most problems are difficult to solve and that governments can no longer pull levers and get results. Even more importantly, it provides space and time to win a hearing for what you have to say. And the winning of a hearing – the “standing” of which Michael Ignatieff has written – is the sine qua non of political success today. Cameron used to have this precious skill, but he reaches for it much less confidently now, which is what office does for you, and it is partly why he is a diminished figure. It doesn’t come naturally to Miliband either, although he is improving slowly, and that’s the better direction to be heading in. John Major and Tony Blair both had it, though Blair is losing it, which Charles Kennedy never has. Gordon Brown and Margaret Thatcher had other virtues but signally lacked this one. Sturgeon lacks it, as nationalists almost by definition must. Farage, another nationalist, is the same. In the end, all the party leaders are fighting in slightly different contexts. Farage transcends his party to a degree that does not apply to any of the others. Clegg is synonymous with his party, as Sturgeon now is with hers, but with diametrically opposite consequences. Cameron is more popular than Miliband, but is held back by his party. Miliband is the reverse. If you hang on to one insightful remark from this first week of campaigning, let it belong to Michael Ashcroft, who observed that voters realise Miliband may be the price that has to be paid for a Labour government. Will the undecided voters pay? This election will turn on the answer. |