Most of the most fervent
supporters of Laura Norder, in her rawest and most vengeful state, tend to prefer
to see her dressed in deepest blue, and are highly suspicious of attempts to
lighten the shade a tad, never mind choose a different colour entirely. The
result when the Labour Party attempts to steal ownership of the issue from the
Tories is that it ends up sounding either like empty rhetoric (“tough on
crime, tough on the causes of crime”) or like an even more extreme version
of the Home Secretary of the day. Tony Blair ‘only’ had to outflank Michael
Howard in the role; the increasingly hapless Keir Starmer has to deal with the deranged Suella Braverman. Desperate times call for desperate measures, some might say,
which may help to explain Labour’s highly personalised attack
ads on Sunak over crime issues.
It's not entirely unreasonable
in principle to seek to associate the current leader of the Tory Party with the actions
of his party’s government over the past 13 years, even if he wasn’t even in
parliament for the first five of those years: the buck stops at the top. It
does, though, make it harder for anyone with any sense of rationality or fairness to argue
that the actual DPP
at the time a decision was taken not to prosecute Jimmy Saville was in no
way responsible for the decision taken by the organisation he headed, which was
the essence of Johnson’s unpleasant slur against Starmer. And there is at least
a danger that extending the criticism of Sunak all the way back to 2010 ends up
sounding like a criticism for not changing the rules and processes bequeathed
to the Tories by Labour following the 2010 election. Fighting fire with fire is
one thing, but joining one’s opponent in the gutter is another entirely. One of
the earliest moral strictures drummed into me as a child was that two wrongs
don’t make a right; the Tories may have started the descent into the gutter,
but that’s a wholly inadequate reason to join them there.
The third attack ad has been
widely interpreted as being an attack
on the PM’s wife, but it seems to me that, looked at in objective terms, it
is the most valid of the three to appear to date. It is a matter of recorded
fact that the Sunak household benefitted from the availability of non-dom
status for tax purposes, and when it came to light, he seemed to see nothing
wrong with the arrangement as a matter of principle. Certainly he did nothing
as Chancellor, and has done nothing as PM, to abolish or limit the availability
of the status, and whilst that’s a sin of omission rather than a sin of
commission, it’s entirely fair to pin that one directly on him, in a way that blaming
him for sentencing by the judiciary simply is not.
Whatever the rights and
wrongs, all the reports suggest that Starmer is delighted
by the reaction to the ads. It’s an approach which has left many, including
members of his own party, uncomfortable and uneasy, but he doesn’t care. It’s
not as if they’re going to vote Tory as a result. All he cares about is
appealing to those voters who can win or lose him the next election. We can be
certain that he will have had detailed analysis showing who these people are
and what they care about, but we can get a long way towards answering those
questions by some simple arithmetic. To win an absolute majority, he needs to
win 128 seats directly from the Tories; to displace the Tories as largest
party, 79 seats would do the job. Assuming that all the extras come as direct changes
from Tory to Labour, he needs about 150,000 people to change their votes to win
79 seats, and around 500,000 to change their votes to achieve an overall
majority. They are the only votes in whom he is interested; he can and will
forget the other 46 million voters.
The problem with identifying such
a minority slice of the electorate is that they are unlikely to be typical of
the rest of us: appealing to Tory voters who live in seats with small Tory majorities
necessarily involves appealing to a comparatively tiny minority of the
electorate, and one likely to hold more extreme views. People who believe that
the justice system is about punishment, not protection of the public,
rehabilitation or re-education, and that the more people thrown into prison for
longer terms in poor conditions the better. Many probably also want to bring
back hanging and flogging. People who don’t like foreigners, especially those
of a different skin hue, and think the EU is some sort of evil empire. People
for whom the not-so-subtle racism invoked by associating a picture of a PM of Asian
origin with a message suggesting that he is lenient on grooming gangs is more
of a wink and a nudge than a red flag. They could have taken a different
decision; they could have decided to try and appeal instead to those Tory
voters (yes, there are some) who have been turned off by the dishonesty, sleaze
and sheer incompetence of the last three PMs; they have instead decided to go
after those voters to whom all the worst attributes of Johnson actually
appealed.
At it’s simplest, it’s case of
seeing the end as justifying the means, but it’s another serious indictment of
an electoral system where parties know that they only need to pitch their
appeal to a tiny minority of voters. It would never work in a properly
proportional system.
Posts
