By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
While the Conservatives appear finally to have dropped the idea of marking Tory candidates on the ballot papers as representing "David Cameron's Conservatives", their campaign is still overwhelmingly fronted by their charismatic leader, who is undoubtedly their biggest asset.
His face has been increasingly foisted on the British public, from posters to keynote speeches to Radio interviews.
That's fair enough; he is, after all, their leader.
But where is Cameron's friend and longtime partner, George Osborne? Since the turn of the year, he has been conspicuous only by his relative absence.
Perhaps the Conservatives have realised what Vinay Nair spoke about at the Fabian Conference on Saturday, highlighted again at Liberal Conspiracy this morning – that Osborne is not an electoral asset to the Tories. Quite the opposite.
Vinay's Fabian presentation asks whether Labour and the Lib Dems would do well to highlight Osborne's relative inexperience and unpopularity, with a neat sequence of slides:
In Vinay's slides, there's also an alternative final image that the Lib Dems might consider, featuring their own asset Vince Cable.
So, are the Tories thinking what everyone else is thinking?
With Victoria Street still finalising tactics and strategy for the next election, would such a campaign pay dividends, or should Labour focus more on its own strengths and what it can still offer for the future?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
If only there was more of an element of this on the frontline of politics- people might listen more.
I actually think we expect a colossal amount from these men and women. It is so much worse now than it must have been now in the past. The fact that the cameras are there all the time, and that any moment can be captured and re-used.
For Osbourne he is often in a very exposed position. The fact that he is constantly in shot beside Cameron, and having to control his reactions.
I was watching them for a bit after PMQs Cameron was making a meal of the Security statement, and Osbournes mind was wandering off. Checking the clock, stifling a yawn.
I think that the strain and the anticipation for these two young men is considerable. It's a now or never time. They have to hold on to the belief that they can do this, and the truth is that they are ordinary people, with no magic wand and they must sometimes be scared.
They are moving out from the security of being the ones their close cicle has chosen for the job, constantly re-assured and boosted, and now they are out there and exposed.
My guess is that this stuff about the hoardings must have been tough. If you have the belief that you are decent well meaning person, liked by everyone, and then you suddenly draw that much well targeted anger and ridicule it cannot be comfortable.
I am not comfortable that we do place so much emphasis on the individuals, or that we expect so much.
With Cameron in a sense he has invited this because he has made himself the focus.
George Osbourne is less happy in this position.
Thank God for Obama...
It will be quite interesting to watch this play out with Darling as Obama's plan is, I would wager, a centre-left response. I wonder whether Darling has the balls to support it. And what mischief Osborne will make if he doesn't.
I wonder what the banking industry think so far?
He commented he came across as ordinary, decent, and rather shy, and very "straight" when spoken to.
I do think the carriacatures depicted in the media are probably wildly innacurate.
OK, he's not a natural in front of the cameras- but then DC worked in television- so he's bound to be relaxed, and promoting his image like a brand.
That doesn't necessarily impress me- in fact makes me feel suspicious!
It's what's behind the image and spin that interests me.
I found it illuminating that this so called gap between the parties in the polls is much narrower from the female voters.
We know that 80% plus of communication is non-verbal. In our day-to-day lives it is a truism that we click with some people and (for reasons we cannot explain) we are repelled by others.
As Mandleson observed of Brown : "...he is not comfortable in his own skin." It's a sad but true fact that no matter how hard some people try they utterly fail in their non-verbal communication.
Politics is a communcation game. You need to be able to carry people with you.
Osborne does not have that quality. Hence Dave is hiding him.
Thanks for the comment.
We'll have to disagree, but I give you one final thought :
Attlee v Churchill, 1945
I just feel that so much has changed since those days. Good god I would hate to be a person in public life today. I think the 24-7, ruthless new digital world where every iota of your political life is covered means you have to be media-friendly and "click" with the public or you're dead. I don't think I like it, I just think it's the way things are and will be ever more the case with every new "connected" generation.
It has indeed : "I just feel that so much has changed since those days"
Big subject!
"I just think it's the way things are and will be ever more the case with every new "connected" generation."
Nothing lasts forever .... a great American president, Harry S Truman, had an outlook : "trust the people."
Things come and go and sometimes there's an awfully long cycle. You don't think that you like it, and rightly so, but unless people like you and me - and millions of others - start to make a noise, guess what? It won't change.
But - things can, and do, change. The "connected generation" will realise, sooner or later, that what they are being "connected" to isn't worth diddly squat and will return to "old-fashioned" sources such as books.
Hey - any performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony (and "Erocia" and "Pastoral" and the "Emperor" piano concerto) will have all the seats filled, two hundred years after he wrote them. Quality lasts. Dross doesn't.
Another thought I'll leave you with : this time, it's ol' Deep Throat in "All the President's Men" - follow the money ....
And so it is true with Osborne.
Let's forget all the tribablist nonsense here, Osborne has that certain quality that makes your skin crawl (unless you're from his set). Gordon has the same problem. That's why they are both hidden from local constitency campaigning.
All these cries to look beyond the surface and to focus on substance are simply niave.
After all, there are excellent photos of Ed Balls dressed up in Nazi uniform cavorting with the 'Steamers', his all-male Oxford drinking club. The inclusion of plastic breasts and buttocks doesn't add to the decorum of the scene.
Does the Labour Party really want to go down that road?
After all, there are excellent photos of Ed Balls dressed up in Nazi uniform cavorting with the 'Steamers', his all-male Oxford drinking club. The inclusion of plastic breasts and buttocks doesn't add to the decorum of the scene.
Does the Labour Party really want to go down that road? '
No politicians from Oxford ever is the answer, I think.
I'm not talking about the regular posters- it's more the ones that come in altogether like a rash every time there's any criticism of the Tory Party! Maybe I'm wrong- but I have noticed a pattern.
I wonder if the same phenomenon exists on Tory sites; I have a vision of headbanger "Labourites" causing havoc on ConHome!
Or maybe we're not that way inclined?!
Either way- it surely can't be "shock horror" to have a bit of light hearted banter and speculation about the opposition?
Apparently history does indeed repeat itself.
Mark my words it'll all end in tears.
'Who is George Osborne?'
(Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck)
*The rabbits, of course, were purely imaginary!*
They may have been imaginary there, but could feed a whole family in _Cannery Row_.
Hehe - Jimmy Stewart - outacted by an imaginary rabbit!
Blimey!
You'll be telling me that Jessica Rabbit is a cartoon next!
Now she definitely out-acted Bob Hoskins.
Is it: George Osborne's a political nerd, never done a real job in his life and is no financial genius?
AAAAAArgh! Weel joup ma' luggies an' gies anither haggis tae stap ma mill. A wid niver hae kent it, if ye hadnae telt me.
Noo hud on a mo', jings I get it, he's yon politician just like a' the rest o' thon rabid heid bangers in Westminster. Does that mean the're aw liabilities as weel?
Mak's sense tae me, ye ken........
(Some one help me; I am now suffering from second degree Burns after the brain damage incurred from this insightful article:-)
Re:Second degree Burns.
You only have to wait til Monday to get the proper treatment;)
I have been visiting this place for a few weeks now and I am yet to read anything that addresses the main problems that this country faces; a decline in real wealth creation, an increased cost of borrowing, at the limit of our credit worthiness and a poorly educated/trained work force. As the Irish might say; "if you want to get to Enterpriseville I would not start from here".
This would to their credit lift 10,000 children out of poverty (if it goes only to couples with children although it still may go to all couples), however were they to focus that money into the child tax credit helping all children what ever families they come from then that would take 130,000 children out of poverty. Hardly surprising as 50% children of loan parents grow up in poverty. I object to the policy because it doesn't help those who need it the most.
I hope you have learned something.
"When the mask slips to show the nasty party in disguise it’s Gideon’s policies, be it wanting to tax the poor when they are alive to save the rich money when they are dead to the current despicable attacks on single mothers through tax incentives for marriage"
You say you weren't writing a 'tories eat babies' bit, but your comment was full of the typical 'tories are evil' rhetoric: 'nasty party...tax the poor, save the rich money...despicable attacks'. My comment does nothing to demean me; yours simply cheapens the debate.
We see what we are really combating, Mike - it's unpleasant, but it may be instructive.
Last I heard, we have free speech. You do not have to read opposing opinions..
After all, if you do read opposing opinions, you stand the danger of learning something.
My contention is not that the Conservatives are evil but that their policies are wrong for Britain (as you would expect a Labour party member to think).
The two areas that I think are particularly out of touch are:
1) Taxing living poor people rather than poor rich people – abolishing the inheritance tax
2) Rewarding marriage in the tax system therefore stigmatising single mothers.
Both of which being related to tax are clearly down to Gideon.
Ken Clarke was right on this, the Tory marriage tax proposals are social engineering. If you have a read of the Tories public health policy document you'll find that they are very much in favour of social engineering. here are some quotes:
"A new Department of Public Health focussed on evaluation and behaviour change"
"we will insist that the methods used are linked to the recent advances in behavioural economics."
"Case studies from around the world have shown how it is possible to use default options to help people make better choices without restricting their options at all."
To me, the message is clear. Under a Conservative government the Department of Health will be renamed the Department of Public Health but we all know that it will really be the "Department of Behaviour Change". This new department will use "behavioural economics" to tell us what to eat and drink and make us think that we chose to behave in that way. The private nanny state meets Big Brother.
6 months ago they were dreaming of a landslide victory. Now they are thinking about hung parliaments and who in the Shadow Cabinet should give way.
Clearly Vince Cable is a formidable operator and George, well, isn't. Even David Cameron knows there are members of his team who are not up to scratch so why not airbrush them out so that the public just see the winners and vote for them and forget the losers?
What I meant was I'm sure it's possible to have robust debate without putting each other down.
But thanks for apologising.
It's the "tone" I object to; somewhat taking the "p."
I think it's possible to post stuff with respect for different views.
Try some respect for other people's opinions- that's what this forum is for.
"but he has staved off the worst effects of the reccsion, and has received great international acclaim.He is also highly experienced, and has the respect of the banks."
This has been deconstructed so many times and yet you (on the left in general, not you in particular) continue to parrot it.
Staved off the worst effects of the recession? Bullshit. IMO Gordon's actions have lengthened its effects on our economy.
International Acclaim? The Appeal of Conscience Foundation is a religious organisation. What do they know about economics?
Has the respect of the banks? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Aha. haha.
"The fact that he doesn't care about "image" is a great plus point for me- and possibly many others!"
Doesn't care about image? Sure. Hasn't he just hired *yet another* image consultant?
"GB to me appears a lot more straightforward, and connecting with ordinary people."
As his many 'well-received' YouTube videos show!
@Joshua
"I think targeting Gideon is a good idea not from a personality perspective (although one questions someone who went from a private school to Oxford to Conservative Research Department to life as a SPaD to Parliament) but from a policy perspective. When the mask slips to show the nasty party in disguise it’s Gideon’s policies, be it wanting to tax the poor when they are alive to save the rich money when they are dead to the current despicable attacks on single mothers through tax incentives for marriage."
Yes, yes. Tories eat babies and drown kittens, and then eat them too. They also delight in torturing small puppies and, in fact, want to destroy the human race.
It's tribal monocular attacks like this that really piss me off when talking to most lefties. Anyone can see that all three main parties genuinely care about the country and the people in it. They just have different ways of going about trying to improve our lives. Trying to persuade people that Tories are eeeeeevil will only lose you votes.
I think the problem ios that a lot of people suffered in the 80s, so it is natural for them to say "we don't want that again". We are constantly told that the 80s was "tough medicine" that we had to take, but when the state of the country was not *our* fault why was it *us* that had to take the medicine? You say:
"They just have different ways of going about trying to improve our lives. "
But the problem is that their "ways" will affect many people adversely, while protecting the very people who should be paying for this mess. (Yeah, I'm talking about the bankers who Darling wants to tax hard and Boris does not.)
For the same reason that we will have to spend the next decade or so paying back all the money squandered by Gordon Brown after his nine year splurge.
This is the problem with governments squandering cash (or as Gordon would say: "investing billions"). Legally, the British taxpayer is liable for the debt. That's you and me, dear reader. Not Gordon Brown, or Tony Blair or the Labour Party. Any government we elect in the future will be forced to meet this liability, which means it'll be us taking the medicine.
Someone too young to vote for Labour in 1997 (or even in 2005) will in all likelihood be forced to hand over a portion of their pay packets in order to pay off the debts incurred by Gordon Brown during his nine-year binge. Next time you see a school kid just think of that horrid medicine and promise yourself: no more socialism.
If you want to do it properly, bring back Damien McBride...and Dereck Draper.
New labour
New danger
any one?
Jo.
I might add, for the record, that this attack on G Osborne business, using "image", is lousy politics and the article is not one of Mr Smith's beter efforts.
It's not meant to be a masterpiece -- it's a little populist piece (one of the most popular on Twitter today) about electoral tactics that asks a more serious question: if Osborne is our Chancellor in waiting, where are his contributions?
Jeremy Paxman asked him a similar question last year, where he said, in the middle of the biggest economic crisis for decades during which the chancellor had given dozens of speeches and talks the shadow chancellor has given 2.
I think it's fair to want alternatives and presence from Mr Osborne, no?
Not sure which Peter (Mr Thomson, or me) you've addressed your comment to and yes, indeed, "I think it's fair to want alternatives and presence from Mr Osborne, no?"
I just did not appreciate the "tone" ; given that the images are a LibDem production, it's not surprising ....
I can see that there is in the slides, though.
But I've questioned whether this is the sort of tactics Labour should be using or not.
"But I've questioned whether this is the sort of tactics Labour should be using or not."
In a word, no. The public can see through it and it only demeans the side that uses such tactics. In addition, such methods insult the public.
You should have seen the response that I sent to Ed Balls when he sent out his "Labour investment vs Tory cuts" email message to Party members last summer. It's a good job that I have no "ambition" as far as the Labour Party is concerned ....
Try, without reference to any class or name-calling or "smears by association", "Well, the shadow chancellor's proposals on "x" will result in "y", and here's why."
Don't even mention "the Tory Party's rich friends." Say that "we think there will be some inequities in this, because the result will favour higher-earners more than lower-earners."
Remember the "Respect" agenda shoved out about five years ago? We should always remember that respect has to be earned .... this kind of caricature does nothing to earn the respect of the public.
It's a long hard road. Politics, unfortunately, has become more and more personalised and image-driven (JFK started the rot) in the last 50 years and that phenomenon needs reversing.
Don't even mention "the Tory Party's rich friends." Say that "we think there will be some inequities in this, because the result will favour higher-earners more than lower-earners."
Is a very Barack-like line...!
"Is a very Barack-like line...!"
Hand on my heart, pure coincidence!
But I do think it's justifiable to question a politician's experience for the job- especially in a role that could have huge impact on our lives.
On another note,I watched some of PMQ's yesterday- and so much of it is this "ya boo hiss "style- which I hate- and turns the public off.Personally directed attacks almost seem the norm- and reminded me why I'm unlikely to enter that profession!
Have to go now- thanks. Jo.
Also- not all PM's have been good lookers!
It's the whole party's values that will sway my vote in the end.
To me, DC is a pleasant man, but very much focusing on image.
What worries me is that beneath the smiling image, there are far more extreme policies being planned.We certainly have heard very little on substance of policies.
GB to me appears a lot more straightforward, and connecting with ordinary people.
Its not about looking good, its about being able to project your policies, you need to be savvy to do this - and that is part of beng a good leader, and whilst Brown is good in some regards he lets us all down on his image.
As for values, I think the PLP have strayed quite far from Labour values.
you wrote " I think the PLP have strayed quite far from Labour values."
I agree. The Labour website states the following:
"Labour has only been in government for four short periods of the 20th century. However its achievements have revolutionised the lives of the British people. The values Labour stands for today are those which have guided it throughout its existence.
• social justice
• strong community and strong values
• reward for hard work
• decency
• rights matched by responsibilities"
Decency. Where is decency in personal attacks such as those in the presentation above?
BTW, It's only in the bubble that politicians seem to live in that attacks such as these are seen as appropriate. To the general public they are a huge turn-off. IMO.
I like many others look through the prisim of cynism at all major partys at the moment and politics in genral , i guess its how some voters feel at the moment.
Danny
I think the jury's still out.
Jo.
(PS I was agreeing with an earlier comment, not the one below this in the timeline)
"I think in modern politics image does matter,"
Er, image is not substance, and that's the problem. Regrettably, we live in an image-driven world.
As far as "communication skills" are concerned, yes, they are important, but when the means of "communication skills" are used to hide the ends of the underlying reality, then we are, and will continue to be, losers.
Snake-oil salesmen have superb communication skills .... as did the man who sold the Eiffel Tower.
Does he have extensive work experience prior to entering politics?
Considering he may have a such a crucial role in managing the economy in this deep recession- it is of great concern.
People can complain all they like about GB- but he has staved off the worst effects of the reccsion, and has received great international acclaim.He is also highly experienced, and has the respect of the banks.
The fact that he doesn't care about "image" is a great plus point for me- and possibly many others!
I would rather see Willim Hague in his role- he is more convincing and down to Earth.
Of course he cares about image. Why else are we subjected to stories of his role as father and husband? It is of course irrelevant when it comes to his job as Prime Minister, but meant to endear him to voters as a family man. Then of course we have the whole Youtube debacle. Told by image consultants that voters are more receptive to a smiling face. Unfortunately, he wasn't told that smiling at inappropriate places in a speech makes him look creepy. He very much cares about his image. The problem is, he's not very good at conveying a good one.
Indeed. It is a pity that we have to endure a campaign based on "image", but that is the world the media insist we live in: size zero models and men with six packs. (No, I do not have a six-pack, whatever that is.)
I accept David Cotton's argument, above, that politicians have to start somewhere, but the problem with Osborne is that he has not done anything else (St Vince, of course was the chief economist at Shell, that really *is* a qualification).
When I left university with a physics degree I hoped to become a scientist, but I knew that it would take 30 or 40 years of hard work to get anywhere near the top (I failed, by the way, and gave up research). Even the brightest of physicists have to do a lot of work to get to the top.
Osborne wants to be the top person in the country on the economy, yet seems to have been catapulted to that position without actually doing anything. It really does have that feel of "jobs for the boys". At least Phillip Hammond, his deputy, has run a business.
And I should not have to remind you that the economy was in a different state in 1997 (there wasn't a global recession then) and that by 1997 Brown had been an MP for 14 years and had had shadow Treasury, Trade and Chancellor positions for 12 years. Osbourne has been in Parliament for 9 years and shadow Chancellor for a mere 6 years.
You say that Osbourne has been "shadow Chancellor for a mere 6 years".
Do you realise that Gordon Brown became shadow Chancellor in 1992, so held the position for a mere 5 years before taking on the actual job. As you say, Osbourne has been shadow Chancellor for 6 years. This is a whole year longer than Brown. In conclusion, Osbourne has more experience as a shadow Chancellor than Brown.
Thats probably because its beyond saving, unfortunately.
And our chancerllor is putting a tax on jobs (the national insurence rise) , Not good for small buisnesses that provide employment, How will this help the recovery? Also what happened 2 days ago in east london might just hit voters more than what Mr Osbourne and Mr Darling say, In a press confrance on taking over at west ham , Mr Sullivan and Mr Gold highlited the affect of the 50p tax and rise in natinol issurence would have on bringing the best talent to this country or keeping the best talent in this country , The 50p tax was meant to bash the bankers but it might have a neagitive affect on football and all the fans that support premier leauge clubs , and as i said on another thread passing parlimentry garbage like the fiscal responsabilty act is just "window dressing"
Danny
I am quite happy that David Sullivan is taxed very highly on his core business.
Politics inevitably involves politics; its the process by which we build policy. It's not always pretty but it's legitamte to ask questions on political tactics as well as have policy debates.
First of all, Labour's biggest electoral liability is not the economic mess, or the perceived erosion of civil rights, or the failure to hold a referendum of the EU treaty; no, it is the man at the top. I cannot stress how much people I talk to seem to hate him. And yes, hate is not too strong a word. As everyone knows, Brown is the main problem that Labour faces.
So you've taken that and said, "My! I've had a wizard idea! Let's make someone on the Tory side look just as unpopular! Now, Cameron's just too popular (and besides, we've tried attacking him before with lies and innuendo), so let's try someone else! That's *sure* to win us the election!"
I would suggest that the only reason Osborne is perceived as being unpopular is because articles like this are trying to proclaim it as being so. Calling him a Toff and calling him inexperienced makes you sound like children in a school playground.
Let's go back to '97, shall we? How was Gordon Brown any more experienced to be chancellor? How was he more popular aside from the Blair effect? Why not write an article that goes through the last ten chancellors, and show what their experience was before they got the job. That way, you may be able to prove (or disprove) that Osborne is more or less qualified. Innuendo and name-calling is not proof. It is easy, though.
Additionally, how would the 'style over substance' attack have gone down against Brown in '97? After all, his words were mostly spin, as PM he constantly tells half-truths, and the root of the economic mess in this country lies firmly with decisions he made whilst chancellor.
LL should be able to do better than this nonsense.
A freind of mine said this will be the dirtiest election campain , I am slowly coming round to there way of thinking , I see there was a picture of Mr Osbourne in his school years , Was this another jibe at rich posh boy ? As to experiance , had any of the minsters in 97 ever been minsters before? had mr Blair been Primeminster before? The experiance thing is important, Have any minsters been through the crimanal justice system that would give them some experiance of what really happens? Have any of them had drug problems so they can affect proper rehabiltaton for drug users? All new goverments are by default inexperianced .
Danny
No. That is him wearing his Bullingdon outfit when he was at Oxford.
I agree with your sentiments about that it is unfair to poke fun at the school people attended, because that is not their decision, it is their parents decision. Personally I would not attack someone on that.
However, at Oxford Osborne was over 18 and hence an adult. He didn't have to go to Oxford, that was his choice. He didn't have to be in the Bullingdon but he chose to. A normal person would have refused to have anything to do with a bunch of arrogant thugs who deliberately trashed restaurants and justified it because they had the money to pay off the owner. Normal people do not behave like that.
There is nothing normal about Osborne, but sadly, in the worse sense.
I agree with you. But would highlight the fact that we are yet to hear what the actual Chancellor is going to do. How exactly are Labour going to reduce the debt? Where exactly are Labour going to cut? If Labour had outlined their game plan, then fine, we could make a comparison. But as it stands neither party has outlined what they would do.
The more terrifying set of slides would have been to consider Gordon Brown continuing overseeing "management" of the economy.
Vince Cable agreed with Gordon's model of bailing out the banks - which was idiotic.
Just because Vince called time on Gordon's debt bubbles - it doesn't mean he's anywhere near up to the job of fixing the ruins that the megalomaniac in Number 10 will leave behind.