Sarfraz Manzoor

from CiF sept 30

To what extent does the current Conservative poll lead reflect voters’ opinion of David Cameron and Gordon Brown? How much does it reflect their actual policies? In leadership, has style overtaken substance? That was the the opinion research agency YouGovStone tried to answer on the Conservative fringe yesterday.

It did seem curious, to say the least, that this discussion was taking place on the day that the world economy appeared to be on the brink of meltdown: if ever there was a time for political leaders of substance, it is surely now. Before the session began in earnest we were handed polling data which revealed that in a survey of 515 influential people (who these were and how they were selected was not explained), 59% thought that Cameron was a triumph of style over substance – and yet despite this perception, 78% also believed that he would lead the Conservatives to victory at the next general election.

If I were a Conservative, this would make me quite nervous. It suggests that the Tory lead is rather soft and that it is bolstered by a sense of the inevitability of a Tory victory and disillusionment with the government. Everyone on the panel – Tory PPC Priti Patel, Newsweek correspondent Stryker Maguire, Daily Mail political editor Ben Brogan and shadow culture minister Jeremy Hunt – agreed that the current state of the polls was largely due to the personalities of the two leaders. At times I felt as though I had stumbled into a gathering of amateur psychologists, as Ben Brogan talked of how these days we want political leaders with “emotional intelligence… we expect empathy and our politicians to emote,” he argued, adding that “we want to cut them and see them bleed.”

Cameron, then, was a man of these times, comfortable in his skin – as opposed to the troubled and tortured Brown, who is profoundly uncomfortable exposing his emotions. It is of course true that without the right messenger the message will not be heard, but Brogan’s analysis is rather too neat an explanation. This is not America and at the next election we are not electing a president, but the leader of a political party. During Brown’s first months as PM, the very qualities that are now considered flaws were being hailed as his greatest strengths: that he resisted Blair’s theatrics and was not showy. Likewise Blair’s downfall was ultimately not because people tired of his style, but rather because they became angry at his actions. It was Brown’s botched election and his visit to Iraq during last year’s Conservative conference that explained his plunging poll ratings. It was not his lack of emotional intelligence: it was his perceived inauthenticity. He had promised to be one thing and was shown to be another.

That’s the crucial point: we don’t necessarily want emoting politicians but we do want leaders whom we can believe in. What does Cameron actually believe in, beyond wanting to win power? It’s a question that was often asked of Blair, and the danger for David Cameron is that he is slavishly adhering to the Blair manual on how to win an election when events have rendered that manual obsolete. Perhaps in calmer times the Conservatives could rely on the pendulum theory of politics and be confident that the electorate would feel it was time for a change and vote in the man most able to talk human. These are not such times. Now is the time for a leader of substance. Is David Cameron that man?