Nobody really knows how much impact an individual has
on the outcome of an election. I can say from experience as a candidate that a
number of electors will tell candidates something along the lines of ‘I don’t
usually vote for your party, but I’m going to vote for you’. I can also say
from experience as a canvasser on behalf of other candidates that a similar
number of electors will tell canvassers something along the lines of ‘I usually
vote for your party, but I won’t vote for X’. Whether they net down to zero is
an unanswered – and unanswerable – question, but the overall effect is that
most candidates (guilty as charged!) end up believing that their own
personality and ability is having a greater effect than it actually is. What we
simply can’t do is run the same election twice and see what the impact of
different candidates might be. Martin Shipton, on Nation.Cymru, wrote a
timely reminder last week about the dangers of believing in political Messiahs.
It’s clear that Andy Burnham, to say nothing of his
friends and supporters, believes that he is uniquely placed to win the pending
by-election in Manchester – or would be, if he were allowed to stand. Those
same friends and allies are now warning of the dire consequences of blocking
his candidature, claiming that the seat will be lost to Labour as a result.
There is a danger, for Labour, of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, which
will leave Burnham and pals on the sidelines declaring that it all could have
been so different if only he’d been allowed to stand. He might well have lost
anyway, of course; which outcome we choose to believe depends on the extent to
which we believe that the personality and profile of candidates makes a net
difference in one direction or the other. In blocking the candidature of one
individual, Sir Starmer and his allies might well have blocked one potential
source of challenge at the expense of making a challenge from another direction
even more probable. It was a gamble either way.
For those of us not party to the drama, intrigue, and
machinations of the Labour Party at its worst, the bigger question is about
policy rather than personality. Clearly, Burnham is a more effective
communicator than Starmer, although most would probably agree that that is not
a particularly high bar. But how different is he really in terms of a policy
agenda? Not as much as the spin suggests, would be my assessment. That is the
real problem for Labour – they’re so committed to their self-imposed fiscal
rules that a minor tweak to those rules would make little real difference; they need to do more than tell the story a bit better. Those who are arguing
that the answer is a change of leader are asking the wrong question.
No comments:
Post a Comment