Rhetoric is a very powerful tool, and it often produces memorable soundbites. Rhetoric is also utterly redundant if it isn’t backed up by anything. Over the years, I’ve observed how easy it is to produce a generic anti-Tory statement that can stir up people. However, are such statements actually useful in successfully achieving their very content; to defeat the Tories?
I have previously noted in this blog how Barack Obama is often unfairly criticised as a result of rhetoric. Obama’s rhetoric was incredibly potent during his 2008 election victory, but he also had good policies. The problem is, he is still judged on that rhetoric. “Obama has been a letdown; he promised hope and change”. How do you possibly measure that? If rhetoric alone is so effective, why wasn’t Mrs Thatcher beaten in the 1980s?
The problem with gibes such as “heartless Tories” is that they aren’t original, for a start. They can also be easily rebutted, even if the core detail is dubious at best. The very crude summary table below helps to illustrate my point:
The fact that these came off the top of my head, rather than through extensive research, shows how easy it can be for the Tories to retaliate. All of the claims above can of course be scrutinised, and the Conservative statements don’t tell the full story. However, the Tory responses make for an easy headline, and on the surface can reassure floating voters.
Rhetoric and gibes can also fail in other ways. People may groan when you talk about the importance of ‘middle England’ and floating voters to electoral outcomes, but it cannot be ignored. The ‘shy Tory’ phenomenon is very much a real thing. If you scream at people who have voted Tory (in spite of or because of) that the Tories are “scum” and/or “heartless”, are they really going to reconsider their vote?
Rhetoric is of course important, but it has to go with something. What do Socialist Worker Party placards with “Cameron must go” really mean? Of course the surface meaning is obvious, but those placards would be out in force regardless of who leads the Conservative Party, for the simple reason that they are a Tory. It’s immensely frustrating that the few weak spots in the Conservative machine aren’t being attacked enough. There’s an opportunity to coherently attack them on the EU, on climate change and on David Cameron’s potential successors. People need to prioritise where to draw their battle lines, and how to draw them. The person who, for me, has made David Cameron the most uncomfortable is Channel 4’s Jon Snow (when interviewing him over relations with Saudi Arabia), rather than any politician.
I firmly believe that many people who voted Conservative in 2015 and/or 2010 would happily vote for something different if there was a feasible and realistic option. There’s potential there, but people need to seize that potential with deeds as well as words.
| Attack | Tory rebuttal |
| “The Tories are dismantling the NHS” | “We’re increasing spending on the NHS, more than Labour did” |
| “The Tories only look after the rich” | “We’ve brought in a national living wage, and are raising the income tax threshold for the poorest families” |
| “The recovery is only benefitting the south” | “More jobs have been created in the north than in France” |
The fact that these came off the top of my head, rather than through extensive research, shows how easy it can be for the Tories to retaliate. All of the claims above can of course be scrutinised, and the Conservative statements don’t tell the full story. However, the Tory responses make for an easy headline, and on the surface can reassure floating voters.
Rhetoric and gibes can also fail in other ways. People may groan when you talk about the importance of ‘middle England’ and floating voters to electoral outcomes, but it cannot be ignored. The ‘shy Tory’ phenomenon is very much a real thing. If you scream at people who have voted Tory (in spite of or because of) that the Tories are “scum” and/or “heartless”, are they really going to reconsider their vote?
Rhetoric is of course important, but it has to go with something. What do Socialist Worker Party placards with “Cameron must go” really mean? Of course the surface meaning is obvious, but those placards would be out in force regardless of who leads the Conservative Party, for the simple reason that they are a Tory. It’s immensely frustrating that the few weak spots in the Conservative machine aren’t being attacked enough. There’s an opportunity to coherently attack them on the EU, on climate change and on David Cameron’s potential successors. People need to prioritise where to draw their battle lines, and how to draw them. The person who, for me, has made David Cameron the most uncomfortable is Channel 4’s Jon Snow (when interviewing him over relations with Saudi Arabia), rather than any politician.
I firmly believe that many people who voted Conservative in 2015 and/or 2010 would happily vote for something different if there was a feasible and realistic option. There’s potential there, but people need to seize that potential with deeds as well as words.
*I do not own the copyright to the photo used: Can Stock Photo - csp23191160
No comments:
Post a Comment