Gamble that was Howard's way (Australian Karl Rove credited)

Scotsman ^ | 05/06/05 | FRASER NELSON

[Pikamax]

Gamble that was Howard's way

FRASER NELSON POLITICAL EDITOR

THE Conservatives took a leap in the dark with their 2005 campaign. They used guerrilla tactics, "dog whistles" and character attacks more vicious than anything used before. Today, they are analysing their gamble.

Lynton Crosby, the Australian author of the campaign, was treated to a standing ovation as he addressed Central Office workers on Tuesday. His imported tactics seemed to bring the Tories back from the dead.

But when asked later if he deserved the applause, he was sanguine. "I don’t have a clue," he said. "We’ll find out on Friday." His tactics will either be judged by history as a work of genius - or a massive, tactical error which cost the Conservatives not just this election, but the next one.

Mr Crosby’s devices certainly rattled Alastair Campbell - who spent much of last week compiling a dossier on how the Tories have drawn lessons from the United States and Australia. He sought to expose Tory "dirty tricks".

"No-one has ever tried this before in British politics," he said in a briefing to journalists.

The Tories were not standing primarily as an alternate government. Instead, Crosby moulded the Tories into a vehicle to "send Blair a message".

This was the first part of Tory strategy: don’t waste time on the policies, just attack the opposition. This was born of necessity - the Tories had too few policies.

When Mr Howard took over 18 months ago, he inherited a series of proposals by Iain Duncan Smith. He left the ideas unfinished.

When Mr Crosby arrived, he was alarmed at the paucity of the Tory policy armoury. But, he argued, he couldn’t do in six months what they should have done in the last six years.

So he adopted the "Queensland Strategy" - make a virtue out of a hopeless position and persuade voters that "You will not win - go for the Tories as a protest vote, not choosing an alternative government".

It worked in his native Queensland, Australia, in 1995. But there was a gamble. Would this negative campaigning persuade people not to vote at all? The answer will lie in turnout figures today.

The next tactic was the "dog whistle" - sounding off ideas which are inaudible to the masses, but picked up by your target groups. It’s a nice way of saying "appeal to the racists".

Struck by the success of the UK Independence Party in last year’s European Parliament elections, the Tories sought to emulate UKIP’s anti-immigration message. Hence, plans to withdraw from the Geneva convention on refugees.

This would attract the blue-collar workers at whom the message was aimed. But would they outnumber the bourgeoisie, urban voters who find it distasteful? The answer would come in how the Tories performed in seats such as Putney and Enfield North.

Finally, was it right to focus the campaign so much behind Michael Howard? Formerly one of the most disliked Tory ministers, his turnaround has been remarkable. But was he too easy to caricature as a vampire from the dark Tory past?

Only the overall result can prove this. If Labour’s majority is over 120, then Mr Crosby would not have deserved the applause after all.

[Pikamax]

and guess what the Independent is credited for helping the Tories. Immigration, shocking.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=636005

[Aussie Dasher]

Lynton Crosby has done a remarkable job: turned a political basketcase into a credible Opposition now within striking distance of Government at the next election.

With Tony Blair stepping down mid-term and the British Labour Party taking a lurch to the left, the Conservatives can fully expect to occupy the Treasury benches by 2010.

[Canard]

"The Tories were not standing primarily as an alternate government. Instead, Crosby moulded the Tories into a vehicle to "send Blair a message".

This was the first part of Tory strategy: don’t waste time on the policies, just attack the opposition. This was born of necessity - the Tories had too few policies."

What a depressing statement. The most depressing bit is that it's arguably true.