General Election Betting: Gordon's fighting spirit - asset or liability?

General Politics Betting / Paul Krishnamurty / 22 February 2010 / Leave a Comment

Gordon Brown prepares to do battle with David Cameron...

"I'm not entirely convinced that accusations of bullying will affect the result of the election. Without doubt, personality matters in this media age, but its only part of the story."

David Cameron has talked about ending "Punch and Judy politics" but what about punch and moody? Paul Krishnamurty discusses what effect accusations of bullying against the PM will have on the election betting...

Gripped by the early symptoms of election fever, the media have spent the last week obsessing over various aspects of personality politics. First, there was Gordon Brown's interview with Piers Morgan on ITV, where the PM was quizzed over such issues of national importance as whether he'd ever joined the 'Mile High Club'. Even if some commentators criticised this descent into lightweight popular culture, it hasn't deterred David Cameron, who will soon face his own 'grilling' at the hands of that political heavyweight, Alan Titchmarsh.

Now the media, particularly the blogosphere, is alive with reaction to the revelations in Andrew Rawnsley's new book, "The End of the Party". A commentator famed for his close links to the New Labour inner circle, Rawnsley has decided to cash in ahead of the election with tales of Gordon Brown's bullying of staff and violent temper. Brown was moved to state over the weekend that he'd never hit anyone in his life http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/uk-and-world-news/2010/02/20/i-have-never-hit-anyone-insists-pm-84229-25878696/. In addition, there are now claims from the head of the National Bullying Helpline that her charity received calls from staff at the PM's office.

To some, these claims are evidence that Brown's character makes him unsuitable for the top job. Moreover, that it is precisely such weaknesses in Brown's personality that ensure he can't win the election. Not compared to the more media-savvy David Cameron, with his talk of ending 'Punch and Judy politics'. If so, then the recent trends suggesting a narrowing of the polls could go into reverse. From a betting perspective, it would seem a strong argument for taking the [1.54] about a Conservative majority; which has just hit its highest mark for a couple of years. It will certainly be interesting to see how the polls move this week in the aftermath of this story.

But is this really a game-changer? Do people base their vote on personality? Will the election really turn on who comes across better in soft interviews, or unsubstantiated claims about the personal behaviour of the leaders?

I'm not entirely convinced. Without doubt, personality matters in this media age, but its only part of the story. The bigger picture is the 'brand' of the leader, and how it relates to the wider policy issues. Voters remain primarily concerned with the issues that affect their own lives, particularly the economy, and are looking for a plausible personality to deliver on those issues - a 'man with a plan', as Cameron unsuccessfully tried to brand himself at his last party conference.

Consider recent election winners, from both here and around the world. Margaret Thatcher always had her enemies, and a personality that inspired at least as much hatred as love, even from her own side. Surely nobody still believed Tony Blair was a 'pretty straight kind of guy' when he won the 2005 election, two years after the invasion of Iraq. Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi and former US President Bill Clinton both retained their popularity despite sex scandals; with the latter apparently much more popular than either of the two candidates who fought to succeed him.

If there's a common thread between that lot, its that whatever their failings, they embodied the 'strong leader'. So in Brown's case, while one might think that being labelled a bad-tempered control-freak or even a 'fighter' is bad news, those traits could plausibly turned into a positive, or at least neutralised. Brown's image-makers would like us to believe that he's a driven character, a workaholic who is confident of the right course of action, and who is very demanding of those around him.

Furthermore, its not as if he had a great image to lose before this current controversy. At his peak, Brown was seen as a dour, but solid Chancellor who got things done. The right man for a crisis, and therefore well suited to these tough economic times. That brand was destroyed in one weekend soon after becoming PM in 2007, when he famously 'bottled' calling a snap election. Suddenly, the Iron Chancellor looked like an opportunist more concerned with his position in the polls, and not a very convincing one at that.

So while it may well not be enough to save Brown's job, I don't think he's any weaker for these revelations. I'm sure he'd rather be labelled a bully than a bottler.