by Atul Hatwal

It’s the hope that kills. That’s what large sections of the Labour party are about to find out. I certainly did in 1992. Now, as then, the Tories are accused of being in the gutter. Now, as then, several of the headline polls flatter.  And a few weeks from now, as then, Labour will be left to wonder how it all went wrong.

Yesterday, while Twitter was rapt with Ed Miliband’s rising ratings in Survation’s latest poll, a more apposite survey went without comment. The Sun’s YouGov poll, which asked who voters’ preferred as PM – Cameron or Miliband – found 40% opting for David Cameron and 24% for Ed Miliband.

Elections are a comparative choice. Only those questions which force voters to make a choice between the applicants for the job on offer, approximate the electoral decision-making process. Polls such as Survation’s, which ask questions on approval vs disapproval are better at capturing the public’s views of a leader’s performance relative to their past perceptions of that politician.

Some good days for a historically poorly rated leader could result in quite a bounce. Vice versa for a leader traditionally well regarded who stumbles.

This is what happened yesterday with Survation. On Tuesday, when the poll was conducted, Ed Miliband did well while David Cameron and the Tories looked awful defending non-doms.

But as James Kirkup astutely highlighted, while the public stand with Labour on the issue of non-doms, few votes will be switched. The perception of Labour as more committed to fairness is well established. As is the Tories’ penchant for backing the wealthy elite.

All of this has already been baked into voters’ perceptions. Which is why, when forced to choose between the two on preference for prime minister, those self-same voters, who will have seen an improved Ed Miliband over recent days, would still opt for David Cameron by double digits –  a majority that has remained stubbornly in place for years.

A few weeks from now, Thursday’s excitement will seem like yet another cruel false dawn. Rather than being viewed, in the words of an excitable Guardian splash as the “day the polls turned,” the focus will be on the Tories much derided mud-slinging strategy as a tactically telling intervention.

Michael Fallon and his Tory colleagues have been castigated for gutter politics with their emphasis on Ed Miliband’s conflict with his brother and patently ludicrous claims about Labour abandoning Trident. As news of the positive polls broke, the Labour Twittersphere was convinced that the Tory attacks were the last desperate act of a flailing campaign.

The Conservative’s onslaught was exactly the type of behaviour which alienates the public from politics. But parties, all parties, habitually engage in these types of attacks because they work.

The objectives of yesterday’s seemingly random act of political ABH were threefold.

First, to change the conversation from non-doms and ensure that Labour did not control the news agenda for another day. Tick.

Second, to refocus voters’ thoughts on Ed Miliband’s character. The manner in which Ed Miliband defeated his brother is regularly brought up on the doorstep with Labour canvassers and crystallises discomfort with the idea of Ed Miliband as an untrustworthy leader, for many voters.

For all the flack the Tories took, they achieved this and over the coming days, the brother issue will be brought more regularly up on the doorstep.

Third, the Tories wanted to link Labour back to the bad old days of the 1980s. In the 2015 campaign, the nuclear deterrent will barely register for most voters as an issue. But by tying Labour to a defining policy from Labour’s past, the Conservatives are building a familiar jigsaw in voters’ minds of a party that is dangerously left-wing and too much of a risk.

Defence is one piece of a larger picture.

Ed Miliband’s clear commitment to Trident refuted the Tory line, but unilateral noises off from Labour’s left will have lent credence to the Tory charge.

A few weeks from now, the effectiveness of these tactics will be evident. Day after day of these types of attack, defining Ed Miliband as too odd and otherly to lead and Labour as a party trapped in the 1980s, will take their toll.

This will not make for noble or edifying campaign. But now, as in 1992, it will critically influence the result.

There was a time when Labour understood this. Much of the mentality of the party’s 1997 campaign was forged in the defeat of 1992. In Labour’s HQ at Milbank a frequent refrain was that we weren’t ever again going to allow the Tories beat up on us as they did in 1992.

There was a pivotal moment a couple of weeks out from polling day. John Major’s Tory party had moved up slightly in the polls and nerves were jangling. How to regain the momentum? A move back onto Labour’s core issue of health? A push on the positive optimistic Labour vision?

Of course not.

Labour spent the next week ripping into the Tories for threatening pensions and casting Britain’s OAPs into destitution. It was a lie. A smear. And it was incredibly effective. The political conversation was no longer about the Tory fightback and suddenly all about what the Tories would do to old people. Job done.

This is what the Tories were doing yesterday. It’s why the viciousness and excessive nature of the assault will come to be seen as a key moment in the campaign. Its why, come May 7^th, voters might award Ed Miliband significantly improved ratings as Labour leader but still vote to keep David Cameron in Number 10 by a significant majority.

The gutter is an ugly place to be, but in the campaign moments that matter, it’s where elections are won.

Atul Hatwal is editor of Uncut

Tags: 1992, Atul Hatwal, Ed Miliband, general election campaign 2015, gutter, Michael Fallon, Trident

This entry was posted on Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 9:53 am and is filed under Uncut. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.