By Alex Prior*
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that a general election will take place on Thursday July 4. Over the course of the next six weeks, therefore, he and Labour leader Keir Starmer will pit their parties, themselves, and their stories, against each other.
But the 2024 general election may prove unprecedented in the relative anonymity of the political leaders. It is being fought by two especially distant political leaders, who have struggled to create, let alone communicate, an engaging personal story.
Both Sunak and Starmer are often accused of being boring. And even though personality is a central force in governing, Sunak has often criticised “personality politics” as petty. He rarely talks about himself unless he absolutely has to.
For all Sunak’s talk of an election being a choice between who you can and can’t trust, it is telling that Sunak and Starmer’s statements at the calling of the election referred so little to themselves personally.
A message, drowned out
The importance of narrative, and the danger of not having one, was clear even as Sunak announced the date of the election. Standing in the pouring rain, struggling to be heard over the noise of a nearby protester playing Things Can Only Get Better – a song most readily associated with Tony Blair’s 1997 election win – Sunak was visibly rattled. The narrative was already a negative one – wet costume, bad setting and an unwelcome soundtrack.
Sunak could have improvised, and it’s telling that he didn’t. He could have doubled down on the song’s message and repurposed it to his own ends. He could have acknowledged it and used it to criticise his opposition. This moment may stand as a lasting metaphor for Sunak’s failure to grasp the narrative and the initiative.
Sunak must now choose an election narrative. His strategy may be to fight this election with self-awareness, using an “underdog” story (considering his party’s weak position in the polls). It may be to double down on the message that “the plan is working”. Either way, he urgently needs to counter the narrative of decline that has flourished during his leadership.
Starmer faces the same choices. It was around this time last year that he finally started making headway in reclaiming his own personal narrative and pushing his working-class credentials to the fore.
In using terms like “Sir Softy”, and branding Starmer as a “north London virtue-signaling lawyer”, we have seen signs that Sunak wants to undermine Starmer’s working-class credentials, and turn Starmer’s own personal story against him.
However, there is arguably less pressure on Starmer to deliver a strong personal story than there is on Sunak. As psephologist John Curtice pointed out on BBC Radio 5 Live: “Starmer’s task is to hang on to the support the party has.”
Narrative control, narrative chaos
However Sunak and Starmer choose to present themselves, the timing of the election is likely to reinforce the air of resignation (figuratively and literally) for the Tories, and for Sunak himself.
Timing is part of the personal narrative, too, and a surprise announcement of an election in just a few weeks does not fit with Sunak’s aspiration to present himself as a safe pair of hands.
The Guardian’s snap verdict was that: “Sunak made no attempt to explain why he is calling it for 4 July … There was no real need for an explanation, but it would have been nice to have one.” I agree – and I think it would have also been “nice” for the Tories to have one. Sunak has missed a chance to seize the narrative by saying exactly why he has made a decision that is so unexpected to so many people.
At worst, this will actively go against Sunak’s personal story, and with it, his “brand”. As Sky News chief political correspondent Jon Craig put it: “A prime minister with a reputation for caution and an obsession with spreadsheets is actually a gambler.” This should not be treated as a throwaway comment. Sunak’s persona is one of calm, methodical, informed decision-making. This chimes well with the Tory narrative of sensible, sound planning, especially in economic matters.
Playing the gambler for one day is a risky strategy for a man who lives by these rules, especially when he is seeking to portray his rival as unpredictable. In his speech calling the election, Sunak said of Starmer:
He has shown time and time again that he will take the easy way out and do anything to get power. If he was happy to abandon all the promises he made to become leader leader once he got the job, how can you know that he won’t do exactly the same thing if he were to become prime minister?
The current prime minister must be careful that the same logic doesn’t end up being applied to him.
*Alex Prior, Lecturer in Politics with International Relations, London South Bank University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
32 Comments
Some throwaway news article comment I saw last night said it best ... by holding the election in early July, he can get the losing over and done with in enough time to be set up in America on some cushy gig with the kids in school before the new school year starts. He will be on the plane before the cleaners have had a chance to whip around No10.
Starmer could drop trou and reveal himself on stage and he'd probably only go up in polling at this point.
Of course within a few months of Labour taking the reigns, the average voter will then realise nothing will improve for them anyway (sound like another country we know?) and it will be back to square one.
Fourteen years in power & five PMs. Brexit, covid & Johnson equals discord, disarray and dishonour. May called an early election which looked like a good idea but turned out to be a disastrous idea and Johnson against all odds won the last election and then self destructed. Then came Truss who left in short order. Not a particularly glorious Tory government by any measure.
I think there is also this general "malaise" in so many countries that means whoever the incumbent of the last years has been will be voted out next election.
Happened here, it's going to happen in the UK (the only question is how big is the Tories' loss) and look at polling in Canada, for example, where Trudeau is about as popular as a dog's turd on the bottom of your shoe.
The themes are the same ... CoL too high, working class under pressure from high immigration, middle class being destroyed. It's a bad time to be an incumbent government!
The economy and society in general is crap for so many - apart from those holding the most assets - and while I'm not convinced that voting for a different colour of the same crap will change anything in any country, it at least provides some form of catharsis I guess.
The UK are flooding themselves with immigrants - both legal and illegal (London is now 37% white).
There is a pattern here, Western nations flooding themselves with immigrants, none of it voted for. I try very hard not to be a conspiracy theorist, but you know this isn't an accident.
https://fullfact.org/online/london-white-population/
Er no...(to the 37% bit. The proportion is certainly going down though)
Never heard of that source, but according to the official state run ONS it's 37.4% white in London - so there's that my good friend. And that is 2021.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/29/uk-census-results-2021-whit….
Yep you have to dig in to the data a bit more. If you read the link i gave there was another "other white" category which pushed the total to over 53%. Of course the Torygraph isn't going to mention that bit as it doesn't fit their agenda...
(Fullfact website fact checks spurious claims in the media)
Look, sorry, I grew up in London. It's always been highly multicultural, with lots of temporary and permanent immigration. Just look at all the Kiwis living there. One half of my own family moved to London (from overseas) in the sixteenth century, which would be a rare amount of provenance for a Londoner. The other half more recently from Scotland. Now I live in New Zealand and have Kiwi kids. No one conspired to make me move here, I just met a Kiwi in London and followed her back. Bear in mind that many of the people who are 'non-white' in London were born there and some are from families that are multi-generational Londoners. I'm 'white'. I went to school with lots of non-white people, who were just like me. My school had a range of assembly options (https://www.habsboys.org.uk/senior-school/pastoral/assemblies/religious…) and pupils were encouraged to visit them all. There was racial harmony. Going back, there were waves of conquest of Britain: Scandinavian, German, French, Roman, etc. If you want racial purity, don't live in London. Even an imaginary London of the past. Trust me, it didn't become the world's biggest city (between 1827 and the end of World War I) by natural births from the founding pure-white tribe that lived on the banks of the Thames. Replacement? Yes - always. Conspiracy? Well it's been going on for a very long time if it is one.
Yeah it's very hard not to become one of the "blame Klaus Schwab and the WEF" brigade when you look at how consistently unpopular-with-the-average-joe immigration policies are simply forced onto every Western country. I mean NZ is a country where we can somehow manage to have a referendum on something as practically meaningless as a flag, or whether you can pass the dutchie of an evening, but no such luck if you want a referendum on something as important as "where do we want to go population-wise as a country".
I guess the question is why?
My conspiracy theory is that it's because it suits both the left and the right equally.
The left gets to destroy such dangerous ideas as a sense of national and cultural identity, and atone for the sins of long-dead naughty white colonialists and empire builders, by importing people who just want to live their existing cultural norms/practices but with a better welfare system and higher paying jobs. Case and point being the supposedly Green party here, whose only immigration policy appears to be "how many people can Auckland Airport process a year" and "the more likely to be welfare-dependent, the better". For Labour in the UK I think it was always about building a complaint voter base ... here in NZ it seems a bit more complicated as the immigrant vote appears to be more split.
The right gets a source of cheap labour and increasing demand to fuel the hungry belly of the capitalist beast, and it keeps up demand on the most precious resource of all (or so it seems) - housing.
Or there truly is some cabal of global elites who want a worldwide population of effectively 'nationless' peasants who can be exploited for their labour while they live in their gated compounds.
Every so often, something happens like Brexit or that post-Brexit election where Boris Johnson won "bigly" (whatever the truth about Brexit, it strikes me that a lot of the grassroots supporters really, genuinely believed it would be a means to control immigration policy and restore a sense of what the UK once was) but in the main it's just a one-way street to a destination it seems no everyday person ever wanted, or was ever asked about.
Always, always, always follow the money.
1) Politicians; Immigration supports nominal GDP (95% of NZ would have no clue about per capita)
2) Large Institutions and banks benefit from more customers and cheaper wages.
A politician that supports high immigration is then rewarded with directorships and the feedback loop in cemented. Nether centre left or right are incentivised to challeng this. Greenies are just incapable of understanding the consequences so support it for the new votes.
Yeah you're probably right ... simplest explanation is the most likely one and all that (and money, after all, makes the world go around).
You are also right that the average Kiwi, Pom or whatever would have no concept of 'per capita GDP' they just see 'economy go up' in the news and can't put 2 and 2 together to understand why they are feeling worse off.
And big businesses, banks etc all benefit massively as you say.
What the article is not saying is that Sunak doesn't want to be PM anymore. Plenty of evidence out there to suggest that he wants to move on. Starmer is craving the job so should be probably seen as a hand over to the next near identical politician, or politicianoid.
Sunak is married into one of the richest families in the world.
Being PM (without being elected) was probably something cool to talk about at dinner parties ... but long term it would be a bit of a drag for sure.
For the people... Noone can imagine how he lives.. and he can't imagine how the peasants live.
Tories are gone. For them the good news is they are dropping a big smelly clanger on labour.
I know about his wealth. That was why I postulated why he wanted to jump to a cozier lifestyle.
The differences between Labour and Conservative is hardly anything these days, apart from the former allowing the population of the UK to surge to even more unsustainable levels.
I lived in the UK for 35 years, from birth and being from the NE of England, good riddance to Blighty (unfortunately). My first career break was from a Kiwi, probably due to prejudices with my strong accent back in the UK. Can't imagine ever wanting to go back now after nearly twenty years. My friends tell me it is depressing back to be honest. Ahh well.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.