Thread by @shaunjlawson

With Labour unquestionably at least back in contention now, here's a brief rundown of my three golden rules in British electoral politics.

1. Far and away the most important polling measure is always "which party do you trust more on the economy?"

Black/White Wednesday put Labour in the lead on that essential issue in 1992.

Blair pledging to maintain Tory spending plans for the first term was all part of reassuring the public; Kinnock lost the 1992 election mostly through John Smith's Shadow Budget.

Because that reopened fears around the Winter of Discontent. Never has the power of the British media been greater than that.

On the morning of the 1992 election, my Mum - who'd voted SDP in the 80s - and her fellow dogwalkers were ALL terrified of Labour winning.

And just as suburban women tend to decide US elections, so they do in the UK too.

Objectively, those fears were ridiculous... but millions and millions had it drummed into them day after day, year after year. That "There Is No Alternative".

Under New Labour, Gordon Brown was an enormously popular Chancellor for a long long time.

He was almost universally respected - and 'No More Tory Boom And Bust' held firm, along with a political discourse which made the Tories terrified of proposing tax cuts.

Until, of course, 2008.

When the Tories, who'd (apparently) detoxified under Cameron and started winning over liberal voters (especially social liberals) in the centre went back ahead on that crunch economic measure... and have remained so ever since.

But even then, that Labour and the Lib Dems forced a hung Parliament in 2010 despite Brown having been a national laughing stock less than a year earlier reminds us: there's almost always an incumbency bias, and the public weren't convinced by the Tories.

Very unusually for a party in power for over 11 years and counting, I don't think the Tories have ever been loved at any point in that time.

Their success has been much more about Labour's various failings - in public perception (fuelled by the media) instead.

But why did Cameron, however cynically, emulate Blair's focus on 'education, education, education' with his supposed prioritising of the 'N. H. S.'?

The answer lies in golden rule number 2.

2. Labour's traditional weakness in public eyes is the economy. The Tories' is the NHS. Whichever party successfully neutralises that weakness will win.

And where Cameron succeeded on that - rightly or wrongly, given the top-down reorganisation etc - Miliband failed.

The number 1 reason I was convinced the polls' top line numbers were wrong in 2015 was that Miliband had continued to trail Cameron by large margins on both the economy and personal approval ratings. Therefore, how could the parties be neck and neck?

They weren't.

Miliband's awful failure to challenge the narrative around austerity (seized by the coalition in Summer 2010, when Harriet Harman proved a hopelessly inept caretaker) combined with public perceptions of his weakness.

Hence the huge power, late in the 2015 campaign, of the Tories insisting that he'd be held to ransom by the SNP.

Which exposed a mindblowing level of public ignorance on how minority governments work - but the image in their heads was probably something along the lines of him being beaten around the head by Sturgeon.

I liked Ed. As did my sister. But a year or so later, she said to me:

"In a way, I'm happy he didn't win. I think he'd have had a nervous breakdown as PM".

Which brings me to golden rule number 3.

3. The electorate wants a hard head and a (relatively) soft heart.

Miliband failed on the first count, completely. However decent a bloke he is.

But because the electorate focuses more on head than heart, it was also OK with Cameron.

Many people were convinced he was a nice enough guy at heart - and yes, I know how ridiculous that is. Ditto the public's unbelievable levels of economic illiteracy over austerity.

Reviewing the 2015 election in a piece I wrote for Open Democracy the day after, I referred to the chronic economic illiteracy of the British electorate as a "growing national security threat".

A warning which was horribly vindicated the following year.

After which, to everyone's amazement, Labour came so close in 2017. But:

- They still trailed heavily on the economy
- They still trailed on the leaders' approval ratings, but the gap had closed

Ultimately, Corbyn was still seen as too nice, not at all hard headed.

May? Hard headed - but increasingly incompetent - and HORRIBLY hard hearted.

Hence the outcome; neither had done enough in public eyes to win. With Labour's performance providing a reminder that no, Britain hadn't suddenly turned massively racist. It was still socially liberal.

The problem for Corbyn was that Johnson, when he became Tory leader, was always going to tap into that and win over soft Tories/centrists repelled by May.

The other problems were the antisemitism scam - which made the public think he was nasty, not nice - and of course, Brexit.

I will always admire the via media he tried to steer on that. But under FPTP, it meant he stood in the middle and was run down on both sides.

It also meant he was seen as anything but hard headed, on the most important issue facing the country since the war.

Public perceptions of Johnson? Relatively hard headed, certainly soft hearted... mostly because of his humour, which always goes a long way in any leader.

Corbyn is really humourous with his supporters. But too many times, he froze. And hectored. Too serious by half.

Outcome? Again hugely driven by a lying, mendacious media, as well as Labour MPs and fanatical Remainers, an easy Tory win.

Note that if a leader is TOO soft hearted, the public will default to focusing on the head. That's what it did with Corbyn throughout his leadership.

So, where are we now? First, the Tory's bizarre reputation for 'competence' has been shattered by recent revelations. Starmer MUST now be seen as much more competent than Johnson.

But what he lacks, chronically, is that can-do warmth, positivity, cheeriness.

In other words, at this point, he's only half of what Labour need... but it's the more important half. The head.

Sunak would be a very dangerous opponent because he has, in public eyes, both the head and the heart. But that likely won't last.

Energy bills are rocketing. NI will go up. So will inflation. All the while universal credit has been stripped back to barely even subsistence levels.

It's not just the poorest who'll suffer horrendously. Not even Theresa May's 'just getting by'.

It's those above that too: those on about 25K or less. They're going to find making ends meet very difficult... and they're exactly the kinds of voters the Tories cannot afford to piss off.

That means Sunak could easily become pretty unpopular, especially when the public learn of his background.

The juxtaposition of his gargantuan wealth and so many people suffering horribly will not play at all well.

But I don't think the Tories will choose him.

I think they'll choose Truss - which will likely create a VERY unusual dynamic in British politics.

Tory leader: has a heart (there's almost always a twinkle in her eye, very Boris-like), but does she have the head?

Labour leader: has the head, but does he have a heart?

But in the end, whoever replaces Johnson will stand or fall on the economy.

The only exception to that was 1997 - when the public seemed to appreciate that Britain was only growing fast because of the direct failure of government policy: crashing out of the ERM.

Horrible numbers lost their homes as a result. They neither forgave nor forgot.

The good news? It's all to play for. First time that's been the case in quite some time. The further good news? How many parties ever last more than 15 years or so in government?

The public just gets sick of them - and in the Tories' case, that means their alleged 'economic competence' descends into sleaze, greed, corruption.

In Labour's case, its soft-heartedness ends up held against it too, eg. Winter of Discontent and "Labour crashed the economy!"

But we might just have reached the tipping point now. When Tory dominance suddenly stops looking inexorable, and it becomes a question instead of how long they have left before being swept away by an appalled, disgusted public.

One final thing. A comment which may well lose me followers - but y'know, try and bear with me before you go postal.

Who do I think is the British electorate's idea of the ideal political leader, especially under FPTP? Who came closest to it? Answer: Tony Blair, 1994-2003.

Because he was both hard-headed in a way no Labour leader had been since Wilson... and soft-hearted. Because for that time, he and Labour were very strong on both the economy and the NHS.

Not to political activists, I know. But among those who decide elections? Oh yes.

In fact, if asked to place him on a left/right spectrum, many would likely have put him right slap bang on the centre axis. Literally, the centre.

Socially liberal and in tune with rapidly changing times; economically centrist, reassuring those scared off Labour previously.

Then, of course, he blew it all. Completely.

But I mentioned above that the Tories have never been loved. They've kept winning by default almost.

But what the public truly wants is hard head, soft heart. It's up to Starmer to complete the second half of that. /ENDS

PS. 'A brief rundown'?!?! 🤣🤣😳😳

I just can't help myself. 🤡