by Atul Hatwal
Rule 3: Re-draw the dividing lines with ring-fenced, costed policy measures
Following each election, there is a single characteristic common to the public view of the loser, regardless of party or the issues which defined the election.
They represent the undeserving few rather than the honest many.
In 2010, Labour was the party addicted to state spending at tax payers’ expense. In 1997 the Tories were too busy settling their own personal scores to be bothered with the welfare of the country. And in 1979 Labour was a government beholden to the unions not the country.
The central task for any political campaign is to convince voters that the other side is on the wrong side of this divide.
Rule three of opposition involves using ring-fenced, costed policies to re-draw these dividing lines in the opposition’s favour.
It means defining in detail those areas where privileged, special interest minorities, preferably allied to the government, will pay for the measures that benefit the hard-working majority.
This is easier said than done, but all it takes are a limited number of emblematic policies.
For example, in 1997, one of Labour’s five pledges in the election campaign was for a windfall tax on utilities to pay for training and work for the long term young unemployed.
As a policy it tapped into voter anger at the privatised utilities making abnormal profits, an area on which the Major government was vulnerable, and made the connection to tackling youth unemployment, something to which the Tories were seen as indifferent.
The dividing line between helping the young unemployed under Labour versus protecting privileged utilities under the Tories was as clear as it was bright.