To get ahead in modern-day elections it seems that one must come from behind.
I am too wet behind the ears to know when and where this phenomena originated but I would start with Bill Clinton, the ‘Comeback Kid’. Seemingly down and out in New Hampshire in 1992, Clinton turned it around with calculated risks and used that momentum-gathering moniker to great effect from then on in. The same strategy has been used by Barack Obama against Hillary, Ed Miliband in the Labour leadership contest and Gordon Brown (well, Peter Mandelson) in the recent UK elections, with mixed degree of success.
As Scotland’s political parties shape up for May 2011, there appears to be a similar jostling for the coveted perceived second place going on. While Lib Dems, Tories and Greens quite understandably talk themselves up, there is a certain talking down going on from Labour.
This thought emanated from Iain Gray’s talk of an ‘elite’ (which he seemingly wants no part of) and refrain of being a humble teacher and it crystallised upon reading John Park MSP’s guest post over at A Burdz Eye View, seemingly a follow up from Labour’s election and campaigns co-ordinator on themes from Iain Gray’s leader’s speech at the Scottish Conference. John makes an imaginative comparison between Labour’s coming election campaign and the Spartan battles that were fought against preposterous odds by an outnumbered few. This is the same story of the recent film ‘300’ but don’t take that thought much further as surely noone wants to imagine the Shadow Front Bench in tight leather pants.
Any objective assessment of the May campaign would at least have the SNP and Labour on an equal footing, many would say that a press favourable to Labour, often slavishly fawning in its analysis, a UK-wide party machine that is used to winning and an electorate pre-disposed to voting Labour does not equate to facing ‘numerous arrows that blocked out the sun’, as the Persians did.
I should say that I may have misunderstood the metaphor, (though I don’t believe I have). Labour’s ‘fighting in the shade’ line may relate merely to knocking doors in the evening darkness over the coming Winter months, imagery that suggests a confidence and optimism for the battle ahead, but at odds with the ‘fighting against the odds’ overtures.
The question is, if Labour is adopting a strategy similar to SNP’s underdog ‘Rage against the Machine’ theme from earlier this year, then is it correct to do so?
Although I can understand the fuzzy satisfaction gained from supporting the little guy, I prefer to save that for sporting events or Hollywood moves. I certainly do not understand a politician wilfully painting oneself as that little guy before the eyes of the nation, particularly when your tagline is ‘Scotland deserves better’. We are, theoretically at least, voting for the best of the best into the First Minister role here and the person for the job should be adamant that they were right before, they are right now and will be right until kingdom come.
I personally am impatiently waiting to be inspired, waiting to be swept off my feet by a leader or party that is head and shoulders above the rest, that can deliver a Scottish confidence and can-do attitude, either on the crest of a devolved Scotland wave or surfing an independence alternative. I do not particularly want someone who shuns the elite, just wants to be one of the guys (or girls) and thinks they are on the outside looking in when, in reality, they are already a significant part of the establishment.
This surge in insurgent campaigns coupled with delusions of modesty seem to involve a mentality of taking one step backwards in order to take one giant leap into office, trading on an inferiority complex amongst the electorate where some prefer the plucky outsider to the current establishment, all other criteria being equal.
It shouldn’t be good enough. Confidence and personality should fill the First Minister’s office and it is perhaps ironic that the incumbent who holds both in overflowing abundance is being challenged by a man who, purposefully or otherwise, appears to have neither.
#1 by Burdzeyeview on November 10, 2010 - 10:06 am
Hi Jeff
Thanks for mentioning John Park’s guest post o my blog but just to clarify, it isn’t “seemingly” anything other than what it is: an actual post written by Labour’s elections and campaigns co-ordinator. I wouldn’t want anyone picking up from your phrasing, that this might not be the real deal!
I think the whole “fight them in the shade” thing is as much about appealing to the party faithful as the electorate. The SNP is being portrayed – wrongly – as a slick, monied machine that will throw money at the election to win it. It’s about stirring up activists and getting them out working, the way the SNP used to (and still does in many areas). In organisational terms, the SNP has had the upperhand in recent years so there is a kernel of truth in Labour saying it has to catch up but only a kernel! Labour’s strategy is also a tacit acknowledgement that it doesn’t have the money to compete anymore on big campaigns so is going back to basics in terms of its campaigning. And yes conveniently ignoring the added value of a complict and compliant media, and all the union support they get in kind and also money.
The appeal to the electorate is perhaps to identify with the straitened circumstances voters will be facing in the coming months – flash might not cut it with folk losing jobs, facing wage freezes and tax hikes.
It’s interesting psychology that will keep us all dissecting it for a while yet!
#2 by Jeff on November 10, 2010 - 10:55 am
Hi Kate,
I really didn’t mean to suggest that you had a fake John Park as your guest poster, I hope that didn’t come across to widely. My “seemingly” was more in reference to the wider campaign going forward as it is just early days after all so I thought it would be a bit harsh to judge Labour off the back of one leader’s speech and one blog post, even if it was the elections and campaigns co-ordinator.
You are right to point out that it may well be a message to the party faithful which makes the language fairer game and I agree that it may also be a reference to the money the SNP has as its disposal (or more to the point, the lack of money that Labour has!)
What may be interesting is to see if the SNP follows suit. They painted themselves as the outsiders at the Westminster election but with good reason (tv debate anyone?) so, well, I guess we’ll wait and see but it seems “better” is the new “fairness” in terms of buzzwords. Let it be known that we here at ‘Better Nation’ got there first… 😉
#3 by Allan on November 10, 2010 - 6:41 pm
Can’t be sure, but I would imagine that New Hampshire took place not very long before the last “comeback” Westminster Election of April 1992. A very last minute swing to the Tories kept John Major in office, with pollsters looking red faced all round…
#4 by Burdzeyeview on November 11, 2010 - 7:03 pm
Ah, the better debate – Scotland deserves better or Be part of better…. discuss! It’s a nuance of difference and will be interesting to see how both parties tease that out…. And yep, Better Nation got there first and is altogether better!
And as you are wet behind the ears – ha!, JFK probably ran one of the most stunning underdog campaigns in which no one gave him a chance and he was portrayed as a novice by the GOP but successfully used the underdog and fresh face/approach strategy to devastating effect through “modern” media such as TV.
I’m sure there are others from before the 60s in British politics – anyone care to enlighten us!
#5 by Gaz on November 12, 2010 - 12:22 pm
Can’t help feeling that Labour have made a monumental error with their strapline.
Iain Gray – Scotland Deserves Better.
Scottish Labour – Scotland Deserves Better.
Too true!!!