Bruce Anderson: Mr Cameron needs a narrative of his own

It ought to alarm the Tory high command that his best-known phrase is 'hug a hoodie'

Monday, 2 July 2007

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
Print
Email

So there was a coronation after all. Political fashions can change dramatically. Only a few weeks ago, many Labour MPs had little enthusiasm for a Brown premiership. Now, the clan seems to have rallied, while it is the Tory tribe which is dismayed.

David Cameron always predicted a Brown bounce. He never thought that the new PM would immediately go clunkety-clunk downhill. He warned his advisors - some of whom disagreed - that there would be a Brown poll lead and that they should prepare to tell the Tory party not to panic. But all recent Tory leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, could have reminded Mr Cameron that it is easy to advise Tory MPs not to panic. Persuading them to take that good advice is another matter.

It will not be easy to disrupt Mr Brown's control of the headlines, especially when they concern terrorism (we must hope that the madrassas continue to be stronger on theology than on chemistry). There is, of course, Europe, that rock which has ripped the bottom out of many recent political vessels. Gordon Brown's claim to be a listening premier will not be easy to sustain as he closes his ears to calls for a referendum. There is also interest rates. The next rise may occur just as the public is becoming bored with claims that everything has changed for the better.

Yet Gordon Brown may have an advantage which even a few sceptical headlines would not eliminate. Thus far, the Tories have failed to challenge his command of the narrative. When Tony Blair became Labour leader, he and his team set about creating a political narrative which put a New Labour spin on all recent developments in British life. The Tories were a hard-hearted crew who cared nothing for public services, and they were also economic incompetents. In contrast, Labour were compassionate realists who could deliver a strong economy and a healthy society, stable income tax rates and improved services.

The Blairites were also determined to deny the Tories any sane clear blue water on issues such as Europe, immigration and crime. In many cases, senior Labour figures ruthlessly suppressed the instincts which had brought them into politics.

In all this, the Blairites were assisted both by the early 1990s recession and by the wearing-thin of the Thatcherite narrative. A blend of the Parable of the Talents and the Gods of the Copybook Headings, it could easily come across as an ungenerous creed expounded by those who were only happy when lecturing hungry sheep about the price of grass. But that did not matter as long as the middle classes felt prosperous and Labour was led by Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock and much of its economic policy had been composed by lunatics.

Then everything changed. John Major was unable to come up with a narrative of his own, not that it would have done him much good if he had. But the problem persisted. Since 1994, the Tories have been unable to dislodge Labour from the narrative high ground.

Although David Cameron has made bold attempts to put this right, he has also made a double miscalculation. Determined to convince the electorate that his party has changed, he forged into policy areas where few voters would expect to find a Tory politician. But this strategy had the defects of its qualities. There may have been freshness; there was insufficient coherence. There was also the risk of abandoning traditional Tory territory and thus alienating traditional Tory supporters. They want to hear about crime, immigration, Europe and tax cuts.

Mr Cameron was reluctant to satisfy them, because he thought it would undermine his claim to have changed his party. That brings us to the second element of the miscalculation. Perhaps through modesty, he has underestimated his own impact. As Michael Heseltine has been saying for months, David Cameron was the change. In view of that, he has much more freedom of manoeuvre to appeal to his core vote than he has yet allowed himself. It was always intended that last Christmas would see the end of the first phase of the Cameronian transformation. Thereafter, the approach would become grittier and harder-edged. But this has not happened. As a result, the party has lost momentum.

That analysis would be challenged by some of those around the Tory leader. They point out that he has made speeches about the family, the need for effective border controls, and about crime. They are right. But that is not what most voters remember. It ought to alarm the Cameron high command that despite the very able writers among their number, Mr Cameron's best-known phrase is "hug a hoodie" - which he never actually said, and which is unhelpful. When all his real words are less well-known, there is no room for complacency.

Mr Cameron needs an intellectual framework: a number of speeches, a long pamphlet or a short book. From this, it must be possible to derive themes and phrases. Thereafter, those themes and phrases should be endlessly repeated.

Around 1996, a bright Labour youngster interrupted a strategy meeting. He thought that he had a good tale to tell. It was no longer "22 Tory tax-rises"; it was now 24. The youth expected a mention in dispatches. He got a flea in his ear. He was told that 22 Tory tax rises was a plosive phrase on the platform. It drew strength from alliteration. It was hammering home to the voters. Leave well alone.

The Tories ought to adopt similar tactics. The copies of Mr Cameron's speeches now mouldering in Tory HQ files contain plenty of good material. "This is a government which treats children as adults and adults as children" is only one example. But there is no point in phrases unless they are turned into firepower.

As for themes, David Cameron ought to start with the family. It is not only a subject on which he is passionate, but a means of integrating policy proposals on everything from health to tax. It should be a crucial part of the narrative. There is also scope for negative politics, a tactic which never harmed New Labour. Most voters would be receptive to the argument that Gordon Brown has wasted an intolerable amount of public money. Equally, many voters would like the Tories to condemn political correctness and the nanny state. Those may be clichés. Politicians cannot afford to be too fastidious about using clichés.

Gordon Brown will be less popular in three months' time than he is now, and will seem less formidable. He will be unable to suppress indefinitely the negative aspect of his personality. It should also be possible for the Tories to challenge his reputation for probity. But Mr Cameron cannot rely on Mr Brown's mistakes. He will have to be more effective in putting forward his own positive message than he has been in recent months.