Thread by @garwboy

"How can the Tories still be ahead (in the polls) after 9 years of disastrous rule?" is a question often asked in the #GE2019 buildup. So here's a brief thread about one factor that could help explain this, from a neuropsych perspective

Will keep this as neutral as possible

/1

In terms of the theoretical 'average' voter, someone who's not especially politically engaged, just sees the headlines and the main people, the Tories may have been in power (in some shape or form) since 2010. But it's not been 'the same' Tories the whole time, has it

/2

Since 2010, we've had
- Coalition govt
- Cameron majority govt
- May majority govt
- May minority + DUP
- Johnson's cavalcade of chaos

The last 4 are within the last 4 years. That's a *lot* of turnover and 'refreshing', in a weird sort of way.

/3

So while the Tories have been de-facto 'in power' for nearly a decade, it's not been the same people for any particularly long time, especially in recent years. Johnson's only been PM for a few months, after all.

/4

It shouldn't, obviously, but why does this matter? Because cause-and-effect are difficult enough concepts to make stick in politics at the best of times. E.g. it's only recently that Austerity has been deemed to be a shit policy, and that stems from the early Cameron era

/5

Essentially, presumably entirely by accident, the Tories have been 'refreshing their brand' every few years, so the new PM gets to say 'that was the last person' when faced with the negative outcomes of their previous rule. Or, enough people will make that leap on their own.

/6

It shouldn't make a difference, but it likely does. Things are so chaotic with politics and the media now that even things from last week are tricky to make stick, given how the human brain works. Pinning problems caused by an old govt on a 'new' one is even trickier

/7

Even the Lib Dems have experienced a similar thing. Since 2010 we've had the Clegg era, the Farron era, the Cable era, and now we're in the Swinson era.

Not that it seems to be helping much, admittedly.

/8

Weirdly, perhaps paradoxically, the most stable and enduring political presence of the last half decade is... Corbyn

Many will see this as a sign of his fortitude/resilience etc, which is fine. But it also means he's the most likely to met with a "This guy again?" reaction

/9

It also means, however valid it is or isn't, any baggage and bad press heaped upon him (and there's undeniably no shortage of that) has a greater chance of sticking, and building up. As we've seen

Fair or not, it's how people work I'm afraid

/10

There are obviously huge caveats to all this. There are plenty of examples where it doesn't happen; Tories still demonised for Thatcher, Libdems being bollocked for austerity 3 leaders later, Labour being condemned for economic upsets 50 years ago, and so on

/11

This isn't a criticism, that's what *should* happen really. Any potential government should be judged for their record and that of their predecessors, particularly when decisions they made are still having massive consequences now. *That's* logical, IMHO

/12

But in a media landscape dominated by right-wing publications and platforms, and with tribalism being as potent as it is, it's more of an uphill struggle to attach blame and consequence to an ever-changing Tory establishment.

Brexit is another massive confounder here

/13

In a sense, the Tories have been inadvertently using the 'rail franchise' method these last few years; take rickety old stock, give it a paint job and replace some seats, then tell people it's a brand new ride and charge them more for it.

It's bleakly effective.

/end