Obviously, since I neither went to or did any more than cursory research into the Eastleigh by-election, I am perfectly qualified to comment on the meaning of the result.
Dan Hodges has covered the Tories more than adequately (seriously guys, I’m offended, professionally speaking. This loving embrace of electoral suicide has gone on too long).
So I want to talk about anti-politics, and ask a simple question: if the public mood is understandably disdainful of politics, of politicians, of our competence, expertise and ability to do what we say, so much so that they embrace passing chancers and film flam merchants, there are a few possible responses to choose from:
So which of the following should the political parties pick?
1. The Berlusconi plan: Embrace the flim-flam tendency, and promise people what they want, even if it’s obviously stupid. Worry about sorting it later
(there’s a variant of 1, called the “ruby slippers” tactic, which is less cynical, involving promising big baggy changes you’d really like, but have little idea of how to deliver. If you click your heels three times though, you’ll probably get what you need, right?)
2. The eff Farage plan: work out if voter distrust of politics has negative consequences for your own party. If plausibly not the case, meh, not your problem then, is it?
3. The Johnny Cash plan “Focus on the pain, it’s the only thing that’s real”. If some people are seeking the fantasy of populism because you’re not saying anything meaningful to them, then you need to start standing up for reality, even if that means not promising voters ponies and butterflies.
4. The Day-Lewis approach: there will be blood: if people find a political fantasy appealing, they need to have the ever-living crap scared out of them about the consequences.
Any preferences?
draaaaiiinnnnaaaaaaggggeeeeee
Day-Lewis approach has been tried many, many times. Seldom works and often backfires (“see how the mainstream hate us and try to destroy us! They fear us because only we speak for THE PEOPLE!”)
Berlusconi plan works in ST but in LT can make things worse (indeed, Tories approach on immigration and Europe pretty much has been a Berlusconi plan approach)
Eff Farage plan probably optimal for Labour, particularly if Tory right has its way and Conservatives lurch rightwards. Then Ed M can sit back and watch all the LD 3rd place voters in Con-Lab marginals head red…
Jonny Cash plan probably optimal overall, but hurts whichever party does it first (as others will promptly adopt Berlusconi approach). Classic game theory problem: Prisoner’s Dilemma. How to get one’s opponents to commit to telling the truth? You’re both better off if you both tell the truth, but if your opponent does it first, you’re always better off lying. So no one ever adopts it unless forced to.
Presumably Blairite Zombies are secretly in favour of Plan 9.
Would it be churlish, however, to point out that one person’s ultrarealist this will hurt but it will work economic plan is another person’spandering to those who foolishly insist that economics is a morality tale in which evil must be punished and good rewarded. So we’re back where we started, scaring each other.