Generation Jones leaders should put their cards on the table this year

We are seeing a major shift in political power. Having ruled much of the world for more than a decade, the baby boomers --usually seen as the age cohort born between 1946 and 1961 -- are now on their way out. The boomers are being replaced by what the social commentator Jonathan Pontell calls Generation Jones*, a sub cohort born between 1954 and 1965.* They form a bridge between the baby boomers and Generation X, born between 1961 and 1981.

Evidence of the new shift piled up during 2008. In the United States, Barack Obama (born 1961) trounced John McCain, who was born in 1936 and, therefore, is not a baby boomer. Earlier in the year, however, Obama saw off Hilary Clinton, born in 1947 and the queen of the boomers, to become the Democratic party’s standard-bearer. On January 20 2009, Obama replaced a baby boomer, George W. Bush, who himself followed Bill Clinton, another baby boomer, in 2001. Obama’s inauguration marked the end of 16 years of boomer rule.

In the race for London mayor, Conservative Boris Johnson (born 1964) ousted Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone (born 1945 and arguably a baby boomer, if only just).

In my home country, New Zealand, National’s John Key (born 1961) defeated three term Labour prime minister, Helen Clark (born 1950).

These three joined other Generation Jonesers at the top, like France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy (born 1955), Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel (born 1954), Australia’s prime minister Kevin Rudd (born 1957) and Sweden's prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (born 1965). According to Jonathan Pontell, two-thirds of EU and NATO leaders now come from this cohort. Several key figures in Obama’s administration are also Jonesers.

There’s more. In this year’s UK general election, due in 2010, prime minister Gordon Brown (born 1951) will almost certainly lose to Conservative leader David Cameron (born 1966).

The change in ruling generations could have a profound of the substance and the style of politics. Baby boomer politics were all about enhancing personal freedom and self-fulfilment. Their legacy is 1960s and 1970s feminism, gay rights, the fight against apartheid, a new push for indigenous peoples’ rights, a new look at nationalism in Asia (well, Vietnam). Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and their contemporaries also carried on and sealed in the pursuit of greater freedom in the economic sphere. So turbo-capitalism is part of the boomer legacy too.

The theory is that Generation Jones still wants to change the world, but they are less ideological and more pragmatic. Last April, Pontell explained:

". . . We are practical idealists, forged in the fires of social upheaval while too young to play a part . . .

". . . Our practical idealism was created by witnessing the often unrealistic idealism of the 1960s. And we weren't engaged in that era's ideological battles; we were children playing with toys while Boomers argued over issues. Our non-ideological pragmatism allows us to resolve intra-Boomer skirmishes and to bridge that volatile Boomer-GenXer divide. We can lead."

I was born in 1962, which makes me one of Generation Jones, and Pontell’s argument rings a lot of bells with me.

Last year, however, the new generation leaders were ‘pragmatic’ enough but kept the ‘idealistic’ part of the formula under wraps.

On the moderate “left”, for example, “practical idealism” looks more like old-fashioned political caution. This has been a theme of several commentaries on Barack Obama’s first year in office. Drew Westen, the author of The Political Brain and a self-described “leftist”, has bitterly lamented the lack of fire in Obama’s belly and his reluctance to take risks, “to take anybody on.” Given Obama’s record and the fact that Generation Jones is meant to be about a pragmatic pursuit of ideals, I don’t think any of that is especially surprising.

Westen has also slated the president for having “no vision, no message” and of simply not wanting to enunciate a progressive vision of where his country should be heading in the 21st century.

In my experience, when those on the “left” accuse one of their own of lacking a progressive vision, they usually mean that s/he doesn’t subscribe to their vision. Westen has a point though. Obama’s core political beliefs have always been a hard to pin down and his political message is more opaque now than it was during the campaign. Politics Daily’s Walter Shapiro has called the forces driving the Obama presidency “elusive”. He points to a “never show your cards vagueness” on key issues in health care reform, on top of a reluctance to challenge Wall Street and the bonus culture and concludes that Barack Obama remains, “more than any president in memory, an enigmatic figure who defies easy categorization.”

Analyses of Australia’s Kevin Rudd (in office since December 2007) tend to use phrases like “work in progress”, “voters still don’t really know him” and “lacks a narrative”.

Jonesers from the moderate “right” have been open to similar sorts of criticisms. John Key has remained popular in his first year and more in office, partly because he has eschewed economic radicalism and stuck to middle of the political road. But Key is now under some pressure to explain how he will reposition New Zealand’s economy for the difficult challenges ahead. [click here, and here].

As for David Cameron, he is not in power and that so it is unfair to judge him by the above standards. But I’ve yet to hear a convincing definition of “Cameronism”. The Tory leader’s core beliefs remain a mystery. Such a comment may seem predictable from the likes of me, but a recent issue of The Spectator contained some scathing (and well-argued) articles claiming that Cameron has no “big idea”.

And, can anybody tell me what Mayor Boris is trying to achieve?

Pontell may be correct about Generation Jones and the opportunities that lie before it. President Obama is not fighting the old culture wars dating from the 1960s. Rudd has tried to fashion a fresh approach to social democratic politics. John Key has jettisoned the type of neoliberal ideology that caused his predecessors to self-destruct during the 1990s. In his quest to detoxify the Tory brand, David Cameron does not define himself in Thatcher-era frames. All of this is defensible, from an electoral point of view.

But I’m still not sure about the values and drivers of the leaders from Generation Jones - what their “practical idealism” is really all about. Perhaps there will be some clearer answers in 2010.

* I have previously written just about the Baby Boomers and Generation X, while mentioning a sub-cohort from 1955-65, but am happy to stand corrected and consider the theory about a distinctive “Generation Jones”.

On the party leaders' new year messages

Over the last week, the three main party leaders have given their new year messages.  Usually, I pay these comments little attention.   This time, however, I think they offered some strong clues about the stories the leaders will try to tell in the general election campaign, and, just as interestingly, how they might be tripped up.

 

The main opposition party’s theme will always be that “it’s time for a change” and, in telling a story, the obvious archetype is about “the rot at the top” that must be stopped.   In a clever message, David Cameron didn’t stick to the obvious.  He spoke about  our “broken politics”, but used an unexpected frame: “a new kind of politics”:

 

". . .  let's make sure the election is a proper argument about the future of the country, not some exercise in fake dividing lines.  Let's at least recognise the good intentions of our opponents. Let's be honest that whether you're Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, you're motivated by pretty much the same progressive aims: a country that is safer, fairer, greener and where opportunity is more equal.  It's how to achieve these aims that we disagree about - and indeed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats there is a lot less disagreement than there used to be  . . .

 

“ . . .  let's make 2010 the year for a new politics.  Let's be positive about our own policies as well as pointing out the consequences of our opponents' policies.  But above all, let's be honest about the problems facing the country and how we can solve them.  Yes, there will be an election this year: that much is certain.  And we can be certain too that the arguments will be fierce.  But let's make it a good clean fight.  And once the battle is over, we will need to rise above our differences and come together because that is the only way - strong, united leadership is the only way - we will sort out Britain's problems, halt our decline, and give this country the success that I know we can achieve."

 

[Thanks to Iain Dale for the text]

 

Some media commentators saw this as an attempt to “love bomb” Liberal Democrat voters. Cameron's motive was obvious: to win more seats from the Lib Dem and, perhaps as importantly, to squeeze the third party vote in Labour-Tory marginals.   What I found more interesting was the rhetoric that Cameron used.  The appeaIs to the national interest, shared values and a united Britain, above and beyond political argument and division, have long been one of the Liberal Democrat’s strongest appeals to voters. The Liberals and Liberal Democrats have often used “Punch and Judy” glove puppets to represent squabbling Labour and Conservative politicians. 

 

I believe the “unity” frame and rhetoric were also set up to give Cameron safe passage through the campaign and beyond.  He expects to be prime minister after the general election and to face a difficult time in government.  So he needs to establish himself in advance as a force for unity, who can bring the nation together.  But can Cameron and his party live up to the expectations that are being set and embody the narrative? 

 

If the main opposition party’s usual message is that it’s time for a change, the incumbent’s is “no, it isn’t, not yet”.  Longer serving, battle-weary governments asking voters for another chance are more likely to use a frame based on risk: “you may not like us very much but the other lot would be much worse”.   The Conservatives’ campaigns in 1992 and 1997 are good examples.  One worked and the other did not. 

 

In the most quoted part of Gordon Brown’s New Year message, he tried to tell a story about the dangers that the Conservatives present.

 

"There are some who say we must plan for a decade of austerity. If that happened it would also be a decade of unfairness where, while the privileged few can protect themselves, the majority lose out.

 

"I believe we can create a new decade of prosperity with opportunities fairly shared amongst all those who work hard and play by the rules. That is why we are fighting so hard to secure and sustain Britain’s recovery."

 

Brown is using a familiar playbook here. Incumbent left of centre parties are more likely to make urgent, if not desperate appeals based on their core values.  Jimmy Carter’s campaign for re-election in 1980 was a good example.  So were the NZ Labour Party’s campaigns of 1990 and 2008 and the Australian Labor Party’s effort in 1996. On all four occasions the gambit failed.  And Brown has a particular problem with this message: voters do not necessarily see Labour as the most “compassionate” or “socially egalitarian” party. At conference time, Populus found that the Conservatives were seen, albeit narrowly, as the party that have the best interests of ordinary people at heart if they had to cut public spending. Labour had a clear advantage when it came to “ensuring that the most vulnerable in society don't suffer” from any cuts.  But in November 2009, ICM polling showed that David Cameron’s Conservatives enjoyed a 1% lead as the party best placed to bring people out of poverty.

 

Longer-serving governments mired in recession are also inclined to promise “go for growth” strategies.  That’s to be expected.  They need to get a clear advantage as the best party for economic management.  They also have to project a sense of optimism and show voters that they have not run out of steam.  Sure enough, Brown promised to publish the first part of a "prosperity plan for a successful, fairer and more responsible Britain", including investment in high-speed rail, aerospace, the digital economy, clean energy and other "industries and jobs of the future".  But this message also runs straight into a brick wall: most voters now clearly prefer the Cameron-Osborne team over Brown-Darling to deal with Britain’s economic problems.

 

As the third party leader, Nick Clegg might have been expected to invite voters to cast a protest vote against both Labour and the Conservatives (“a plague on both their houses”).   Sure enough, he started with a story about “looking round the House of Commons during another Punch and Judy session of Prime Ministers Questions” while big problems mounted out  “in the real world”.

 

Nick invoked the archetype of the “rot at the top” – both the major parties.

 

"I don’t blame anyone for feeling a sense of despair about our clapped out political system. You are being taken for granted by the people in charge. Big money is hollowing out politics with some rich donors not even bothering to say whether they pay full British taxes or not. And to top it all the expenses scandals exposed some MPs as spivvy property speculators and tax evaders rather than public servants."

 

And then:

 

'This whole set-up has to change. That’s what 2010 should be all about. Big, permanent change for the better . . . 2010 must be the year we press the political reset button.  But that will only happen if we do things differently. More of the same won’t produce anything new. Of course both Labour and the Conservatives have learned to parrot the language of change. But where’s the proof they mean it?

 

'. . . If you like what the Liberal Democrats stand for, vote for it. If you want real change, not phoney change, vote for it. If you think things should be different, vote for it.”

 

Nick’s first challenge is to tell stories about “doing things differently”, offering specific outcomes that strike a chord with what voters think and feel, so that they see the Liberal Democrats as the party best placed to “clean up politics”.   They don’t at the moment.

 

Carrying on the “plague” / “rot” theme, Nick’s message used another interesting frame: the politics of belief.

 

". . . If we as Leaders want people to turn out to vote at all at the next General Election, we have got to show people our convictions, not just dividing lines, our beliefs, not just soundbites.

 

". . .  So as the countdown to the next General Election finally begins, I have a simple question for the other party leaders: what do you believe, really believe?"

 

Nick described his own over-riding belief as “fairness”.  That may well click with the Lib Dems’ brand image.  But it doesn’t work as a frame, let alone as a story. After all, what does “fairness” really mean?  How do target voters relate to such an abstract concept?  Nick referred to some specific policies, on schools and on taxes.  That’s a list, not a story.  If the politics of belief is going to be a success, then the Lib Dem campaign needs to tell some stories that link the policies up and explain what the party means by “fairness”, so that voters can see the benefits for them, their families and their communities.

Nick Clegg's second anniversary as Lib Dem leader

I have done a guest post for Liberal Democrat Voice on Nick Clegg's second anniversary as leader. You can read it here. 

"John Major the Movie": political narratives 101

I was interested to hear this week that the BFI is marking 75 years of party political broadcasts (PPBs). I don't think any of the parties has ever come up with a depth charge like the “Willie Horton” advert that helped destroy the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis or the New Zealand National Party’s infamous “dancing cossacks” in 1975.

Yet a few British PPBs are great case studies in political storytelling. One such is “John Major – the movie”, produced by the Conservatives for the 1992 general election. The Tories were the underdogs, after three hard terms in office, which had included the poll tax and a recession. The then prime minister was shown touring Brixton, where he grew up and lived as a young man, giving a low key exposition of his values and with some political homilies along the way. (“You can't cure unemployment with a short term stimulus . . . you do it by keeping inflation down.”)

Most importantly, the broadcast told voters a story – about John Major and his rise from humble beginnings, from Cold Harbour Lane to Downing Street. It was even titled The Journey! Major recalled his experience of being out of work. He talked about how the NHS had been there when his parents were aged and infirm. He had lived in multiracial Brixton and served on Lambeth Council. Major was projected as an unpretentious “man of the people”, meeting and chatting with people on the market. Many people said (and still do) that they were touched by his modesty and humility. The broadcast showed a leader who was connecting with voters and showing personal empathy with them. Major even concluded the broadcast by saying:

“. . . if you’ve done something or seen it or been it or felt it you can understand what it means and you can understand how it affects other people in their own individual lives.”

The broadcast enabled John Major to embody the Conservatives’ campaign narrative. They recognised that after years of Thatcher, British voters craved a change, to a more moderate, “caring” politics and a softer, more consensual style of leadership. The Tory story was that in dumping Thatcher and installing Major in her place, they had made already the change happen. And the low-key, ordinary, quintessentially English John Major -- “one of us – seemed a safer choice as PM than Kinnock.

The Conservatives were returned against the odds, gaining more votes than Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the landslide of 1997. Major stayed in Downing Street for five more years but his premiership was little short of a disaster, typified by the debacle of “Black Wednesday”. An “ordinary” leader wasn’t enough. And it’s unlikely that “Major the Movie”, on its own, won the 92 election for the Tories. (I’m reliably told that most of the feedback from the broadcast concerned the prime minister’s failure to wear a seatbelt.) Yet the broadcast did what all good political narratives should. It spoke directly to the emotional needs of voters in a clear and simple way; in this case, by simply allowing the leader to be himself – for better and for worse.

Climate change not our problem, say UK voters

Today’s Times leads with a new Populus poll that shows a high level of public scepticism about human-made climate change. Only 41 per cent of respondents believe that climate change is happening and that human causation is an established fact. A third of the public believes in the fact of climate change but remains unpersuaded that it is caused by humans. Nearly one in ten people believes that climate change is a purely natural phenomenon and blaming humans is propaganda put about by environmentalists. Fifteen per cent of the country simply do not accept that climate change is happening at all.

The figures underline the difficulties this government (and its successors) will have in persuading the public to accept tough policy measures – especially higher green taxes - to help in meeting Britain’s legally binding emissions targets.

OK, what’s new? Public opinion polls over the last three years have shown that a growing number of people in the UK are becoming increasingly sceptical of the impact of human activities on climate change or that they question the impacts of global warming on the climate. [Click here, here and here]. The British public’s suspicion of green taxes is also well documented [click here]. Yet today’s poll shows an increase in support compared with three years ago for new taxes on air travel intended to reduce the number of flights people take, and for raising the cost of motoring to encourage people to drive less.

Perhaps I protest too much. Politicos and ideologues of all stripes have become very tetchy over the past 25-plus years when I have tried to point out that opinion surveys show that most people don’t agree with them (or, to be more precise, that their pet issue won’t necessarily deliver scores of seats to the NZ Labour Party / Liberal Democrats). So I should tread carefully today and take the stark new evidence of public scepticism at face value. Today’s poll figures should concern all climate realists, especially after as the science has become steadily more pessimistic over recent years and received considerable media coverage.

Actually, I believe the gloomy science and media shock explain much of the public pushback. In today’s Times, Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, is quoted as saying that growing awareness of the scale of the problem appeared to be resulting in people taking refuge in denial.

“Being confronted with the possibility of higher energy bills, wind farms down the road and new nuclear power stations encourages people to question everything about climate change,” she said. “There is a resistance to change and some people see the problem being used as an excuse to charge them more taxes.”

I agree with Vicky Pope but the denial syndrome goes even deeper than she suggests. This is a question of basic values and psychology as much as power bills and green taxes. The rhetoric used to discuss climate change usually revolves around threats and dangers, with “looming environmental disaster” the dominant frame. But we live in an aspirational, consumerist society and it’s hardly surprising that so many people feel defensive when they hear talk of apocalypse and demands on them to make personal sacrifices. Some of their core values, their ways of looking at themselves and their lives are being directly challenged. People are being asked to take personal responsibility for something that is not yet evident in their daily lives. Talk of climate catastrophe does not always fit with their worldview - their personal narratives - and so it’s easier to play for time, expect others to take the blame, or block it out altogether.

Either way, it surely doesn’t help that politicians, scientists (intellectuals) and green groups – hardly the most liked or trusted groups - are doing a lot of the ‘challenging’. [click here]

I take three lessons for climate realists from The Times poll. First, we should start to use more frames, storylines and rhetoric that resonate with the way most people see the world. No, not dodging the truth about the science but talking more about about green growth, green jobs and the need to preserve our national and economic security. [click here]

Second, we need a wider range of advocates –for instance, more young women and more people from community groups – explaining the issues and making the case for change.

Third, it’s time to engage more with strategies for social change, learning more about the psychology of climate change and finding out how and why people change their minds and act on issues. Some progress has been made on the research side [click here and here] but we quickly need to turn this an action plan. Time is running out.

A step change for climate action

We need action at Copenhagen on the climate crisis and the UK needs to do its bit – both as a moral issue, and in order to have credibility. The question is, what sort of action and who will the UK government do it.

Two major reports that have come out over the past week offer some valuable suggestions.

On Monday, Lord Adair Turner’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) published Meeting Carbon Budgets – the Need for a Step Change. This reported that between 2003 and 2007 (the five years before the first carbon budget period), the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions fell by 0.6 per cent per year on average. But the CCC also said that cuts of 2.6 per cent per year on average will be needed to meet the UK carbon budgets. The budgets effectively call for greenhouse gas emissions cuts of 34 per cent by 2020.

The committee looked at current and planned government policies and concluded:

“Going forward a step change will be required to achieve deep emissions cuts required through the first three carbon budget periods and beyond.”

The committee’s suggestions included building around 8,000 more wind turbines, up to four carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstrations and getting 1.7 million electric electric cars on the road by 2020.

Now for the really hard part. Such a “step change” would come on top of an already ambitious series of official targets and aims. For instance, the UK has a target for 15 per cent of the UK’s energy to come from renewables by 2020, compared with about 2 per cent now. The government’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency plans will need investment in, for example: renewables generation; robust energy efficiency solutions; offshore wind power grids; electricity transmission and gas distribution grid reinforcement and interconnectors; and smart meters.

How much would the “step change” cost? Who’s going to pay? And where will companies get the incentives to invest in low carbon power plant?

That brings me to the second key report of recent days – Ofgem’s Project Discovery Energy Market Scenarios. Of the four scenarios discussed, the one that is most like the government’s policy mix is the “green transition”, based on a big expansion in investment in environmental measures (with a fast economic recovery). The scenario assumes that £200bn of investment could take place before 2020, with big progress on efficiency and renewable heat. That would mean more than double the rate of investment spending over the last 10 years. But, as Ofgem notes, the length of the current global financial crisis raises questions over the financing of that investment. There’s another snag: under “green transition”, domestic power bills would increase by 23 per cent by 2020. That’s a smaller rise than under other scenarios but a big job awaits the next energy and climate change secretary. Will s/he know what to do it and how to do it?

The main way that the government tries to secure such investment is through the carbon price, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It also uses regulatory measures (especially on energy efficiency) and tax policies. But the Turner committee was none too optimistic about future carbon price levels. It also said:

“Our analysis suggests that in a risky, uncertain world, even with very high carbon prices, the market may not deliver necessary low-carbon [generation] investment, resulting in high emissions intensity (and high costs for consumers).”

The committee argued that without a clear policy lead, Britain risks increasing reliance on gas and given falling gas production across Europe (apart from Norway), reliance on gas means reliance on Russia. More gas consumption will make sustained cuts in carbon emissions harder to achieve.

We hear a lot of calls these days for a more active, “interventionist” approach from government. But they leave open a lot of hard questions. Ofgem also put up a scenario called “green stimulus”, in which economic recovery is slow, meaning that governments around the world spend a lot of money to boost their economies and cut emissions at the same time. That could mean that the UK government invests directly in large generation projects and infrastructure projects, such as smart grids, electric vehicle charging and CO2 transportation and storage.

Ofgem found that under this scenario emissions would fall by more with prices going up less than under the “green transition”. But there is no guarantee that the government would always make the correct decisions. The “green stimulus” scenario shows how vulnerable UK energy policy is to external economic conditions. Ofgem notes that with low fuel prices, the additional costs of the low carbon technologies would be very significant in the “stimulus” scenario. Moreover, customers (and Government) may be less able to afford these costs if the economy was not growing strongly.

The sensible thing is to keep relying on a carbon price and other policy measures, at least some of which will need government investment in future. But they may need to change. I am becoming more convinced that a carbon tax or similar measure could be needed to underpin the carbon price. This is one option put up by the Turner committee.

On another of their suggestions: I have long supported action via the planning system to ensure timely approval of large wind projects. The Infrastructure Planning Commission should not be scrapped and its remit may need be extended to cover smaller wind projects.

The Turner committee’s focus on energy efficiency was especially interesting. This has been a Cinderella policy for far too long, despite the fact that improved energy efficiency is the most effective way to cut emissions and market failures mean than consumers don’t invest quickly enough. The committee concluded that “a major shift in ambition is needed”, with at least 10 million lofts and 7.5 million wall cavities insulated by 2015 and around 12 million boilers to be upgraded by 2022.

Rather than hoping that individual households will ask for specific insulation measures, the report called for three pillar approach: “whole house” with a one stop shop covering all effective measures; “neighbourhood” – led by the UK government and delivered area by area with local authorities and energy companies playing key roles; and .“pay as you save” finance – with some grants / subsidies to encourage uptake of insulation measures. That sounds very much like the nationwide housing retrofit programme advocated by the Green Standard – and the Liberal Democrats.

There’s another important issue, not discussed by the Turner committee, where government action is needed. Because of market failures, private sector involvement alone will not generate enough investment to bring some new green technologies to market quickly enough. [click here] That strengthens the case for green bonds and a green investment bank, a cause which has now been taken up, I am pleased to say, by Green Alliance and the Aldersgate Group.

Now, let’s see some political action.

[for Blog Action Day 2009 – www.blogactionday.org]

Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem brand - how voters see the Liberal Democrats (Part 2)

It looks as if the debate over the Liberal Democrats’ need for a narrative – a story – might be kicking off again.  [click here and here]  One element we talk about too little is the leader’s need to embody the party’s narrative, in order to make it more real, more authentic to voters.

 

In today’s quasi-presidential politics, voters use the leaders as quick ways to assess the parties, for good or ill.  If you don’t believe me, look at the Newsnight pre-party conference focus groups. Media coverage of Newsnight's focus groups and quantitative research and the Populus and Ipsos Mori pre-conference work has been dominated by voters’ views of the party leaders.

 

So, here’s a quick round up of what the above research tells us about voters see Nick Clegg.  [For more on the points made below about the Lib Dem brand narrative, click here.]

 

In some very positive ways, Nick embodies the party’s narrative.  One of the Lib Dems’ biggest advantages is that voters see us as the most “honest and principled” party.  According to Ipsos MORI, Nick (narrowly) came first out of the three main party leaders for being “more honest than most politicians”.  Likewise, in the Populus survey, he edged out David Cameron for  “meaning what he says” as opposed to “saying what he thinks people want to hear”.   

 

The strongest feature of the Lib Dem brand is that we are the party seen as most “for ordinary people, not the best off”.  But Populus don’t ask exactly the same questions about the leaders as they do about the parties. When they asked whether each leader was “good” or “bad for you and your family”, Nick had a net “good” score of plus 7 per cent, very close to Cameron (plus 10 per cent) and much better than Gordon Brown (minus 25 per cent).

 

Another big positive for the Lib Dems has been the way voters perceive us as the most empathetic party, understanding “the problems that ordinary people face” and “the way that people live their lives”.  Populus did not ask this question about the parties, as they have before.  But Nick scored quite well for being “in touch” as opposed to “out of touch”. His net score was plus 14 per cent, versus Cameron’s plus 28 per cent and Brown’s minus 39 per cent. And in the Ipsos MORI survey he was less likely than Brown or Cameron to be seen as “most out of touch with ordinary people”.

 

Now for the ways in which Nick may embody weaker aspects of the Lib Dem narrative.  There were some indications in the pre-conference research that the party is still not seen as quite “serious” or “substantial” enough.  This may be due to the old “wasted vote” counter-story and the perennial problems the party faces in getting media coverage.  Many voters feel they don’t know the Lib Dems well enough.

 

In the Populus leaders poll, Nick came last for being “up to the job of being prime minister”, “likely to get things done” and “substantial”.   Yet he was seen as “stronger” and more “decisive” than Brown.

 

The “invisibility” factor was very important here.  When they were asked specific questions about each leader, voters were much more likely to say “don’t know” about Nick.  And the Newsnight poll found that while thirty six percent had a favourable view of Nick, an equal number said they had never heard of him. 

 

Voters in the Newsnight focus groups found it hard to get a handle on the Lib Dems.  They also showed how much the profile and image of the party are bound up with those of the leader.   In many parts of the discussion the voters seemed to treat Nick / the leader and the party as the same thing.  “I didn’t know who he was” . . . “I never see him”  . . . “he’s never on telly” . . . “they’ve had so many changes of leader you feel like its not really investing the time in them because the next leader could be around the corner.”

 

This may, eventually, provide the solution to the Lib Dems’ low image problem.  When people in the focus groups were shown a clip of Nick speaking, they liked him.    Some made positive comments about him.  The Populus work showed that some of his key ratings, for instance “in touch / out of touch” and “good / bad for you and your family” have improved markedly since July 2008.  A drop in numbers saying “don’t know” provides part of the explanation.  And I have argued a few times that as the public gets to know Nick, they like him more.  This augurs well for the general election campaign, when the Lib Dems can expect to gain much more media coverage.

 

Some of the risks are obvious.  A lot is riding on one person and the party’s ability to mount (and fund) an effective campaign.  Other risks may have not have been thought through.  For instance, Nick could follow through on the findings above by being brutally “honest” about the need for fiscal rectitude.  But recent talk of “savage cuts” and “progressive austerity” may jar with people who expect Nick and the Lib Dems to be “good for themselves and their families”.  We’ll need to start telling a story about how the party’s solutions for public debt will be better for ordinary people over the long term.

 

Sounds too hard? Well, OK, we could have a bit less of the hairshirt and try bundling up a few popular-looking if expensive policies as “fair” and “for people”.  But what if most voters simply didn’t believe us and took all this as further proof that the Lib Dems are decent people whose policies don’t really add up? Or worse still, they got the idea from somewhere that after all his talk about the need for economic responsibility, Nick was not really being straight with them – not “honest” or “sincere”?  To coin the jargon, Nick and the party would no longer embody their narrative.  I wonder how many seats the Lib Dems would win then.