Drinking blood with Dracula
In late March, I suggested that the election campaign in Britain, would:
tell us something interesting about how our election is going to play out. Superficially at least, the overall dynamic of the two campaigns is similar: a once-very-popular Labour government, coming to the end of a second term, looks a little tired and vulnerable, and is faced with a Tory opposition that seems better organised and more confident than last time, having found some buttons with the electorate it can push.
Well, the British election is still a few days away, but the Sunday Star-Times is already drawing lessons for our political parties, suggesting National may try to replicate the Tory campaign - foregoing an argument about the economic management in favour of scare tactics that pander to prejudice. Of the Tory campaign, the SST editorialises:
The Tory slogan - “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” - is poison veiled in silk. It whispers the message that at least one Tory dared to shout out loud in an ad in his local rag: “What bit of ’send them back’ don’t you understand, Mr Blair?”
British pundits suggest that this nasty bit of politicking by Howard - himself the son of an immigrant - is colliding with British notions of decency/ Howard has also been wickedly lampooned. One cartoon depicts Count Dracula dripping gore: “Are you drinking what we’re drinking?”
The SST predicts that National will use similar issues to try and win over the New Zealand electorate: race, increased spending on defence, kicking the teachers’ unions, bashing welfare beneficiaries, and lambasting what they perceive as the Prime Minister’s lack of integrity. All of this in a effort to position National as the more red-blooded, blokey, honest, straight-shooting, meat-pie-and-two-vege party that stands for traditional New Zealand values.
But, as the inevitability of a Tory defeat becomes more and more obvious, National may be starting to wonder: do we need to throw out their play book, and come up with something that - to use the SST’s terminology - is more to do with a “fundamental sense of fairness between the two cultures”, “decency”, and “goodwill”? A snarling, outdated Michael Howard is about to lose an election and probably be consigned to the history books. Will a snarling, outdated Don Brash suffer the same fate?
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:07 am
I find the list of issues predicted for National to use as interesting.
Firstly I am surprised that promising increased spending in a portfolio area is seen as somehow negative campaigning.
We will probably never agree on race issues, but I note that even Labour have stopped defending the indefensible in various areas, and this would not have happened without Dr Brash. I accept you may still see this as undesirable, but frankly basing school funding on ethnicity sits badly with many.
In welfare we have much the same global world-view difference. But I think people would be hard pressed to point to actual statements that are bashing beneficiaries, rather than promoting policy changes.
With regard to the teacher unions, my observation is they spend far more time kicking National, than National does kicking back.
And as for the PM’s perceived lack of integrity. Well goodness, I recall how nice Helen Clark was to Jenny Shipley for the trivial error of mis-speaking whether or not politics was discussed at a private dinner.
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:13 am
I also found that a little rich from a newspaper that apparently can’t go a week without a ‘dirty overstayer run amok’ story fresh from Winston Peters’ rubbish bin.
May 3rd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Apparently (so I hear from contacts in the UK) the Conservative’s posters are a sitting duck for a very public response which wastes very little spraypaint - “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” NO!!