You know that a politician is in trouble when his critics start feeling sorry for him instead of tearing into him. It happened to Gordon Brown when his political career was unravelling.
For him, the 2010 electoral campaign was the illustration of Murphy’s Law that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. As he careened from one gaffe to another, it became almost painful to watch. Even the once-brutal British press toned down the attacks a notch.
The same thing happened to Nick Clegg. After Cleggmania had long subsided and the Liberal Democrat leader had gone back on a series of electoral promises he had made, the media had a field day portraying him as a tearful softie very much in the shadow of his ballsy wife. But then they just held off – it was becoming too much.
Ed Miliband has also suffered the same fate. There’s the way that his whole political career has been overshadowed by his resemblance to the plastic cartoon character Wallace from the Wallace and Gromit series, and then an unfortunate series of gaffes. It seems that he can’t gain any traction with the electorate. Even when he makes sensible suggestions such as stopping unemployment benefits for under-21s who refuse training or education, he is not taken seriously.
I’ve often wondered how this credibility deficit is created and what it takes for a politician to overcome it. Admittedly, this is the age of image politics – where a single ill-judged snap can have lasting effects on a politician’s career. For example – a photograph of Miliband holding a banana before a Labour Party conference – was held by many to have had a great part in scuppering his chances of being elected party leader.
Similarly, when his brother was caught on camera wrestling with a bacon sandwich, it continued strengthening the perception of him as a comic figure. So – yes – appearances are important.
They have to be carefully monitored to avoid gaffes being the lasting images caught in the collective memory and public opinion coalescing negatively. But there has to be something more to it than carefully orchestrated appearances and spin. Substance has to count for something. And a good part of that is coherence or being consistent. While politicians can get away with being inconsistent for some time, too many U-turns will bring them down in the long term. I see this happening in the local context.
Busuttil did not mention the secret meeting between Lawrence Gonzi and the Armier squatters some days before the 2008 election
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil was reported to have “lambasted” the decision to have smart meters installed at the Armier shanty town. He said that the government’s decision to install smart meters in the illegal Armier boathouses was tantamount to regularising the seizure of public land.
Busuttil went on to state that the decision conveyed the message that breaking the law was tolerated. Now Busuttil is perfectly right in saying that the Labour government is effectively giving the thumbs-up to people who have taken over public land, illegally breaking both criminal and planning laws in the process.
There are no two ways about it. The Labour government is condoning illegality. However, the Nationalist leader pointing this out elicits hilarity and not respect. He knows full well that this situation was condoned and encouraged by previous Nationalist administrations. Although he made a vague reference to preferring a stricter stance than his predecessors, he was non-committal and fudged about the prospect of demolishing them.
Busuttil did not mention the secret meeting between Lawrence Gonzi and the Armier squatters some days before the 2008 election, where Gonzi committed himself not to remove any of the pre-1992 buildings (although illegal occupation of land is a criminal offence and not one relating to post-1992 planning regulations) and to honour a 2003 agreement to cede the land to the company formed by the squatters. What is that if not rewarding people who break the law?
Busuttil should be engaging in a round of apologies to the Maltese people and admitting unreservedly that the Nationalist Party is equally to blame for the shame that is Armier. He can’t squeak about Labour’s laissez-faire attitude towards without an all-out condemnation of his party’s identical attitude and a pledge to act in a completely different manner.
That’s the only way he can begin to bridge the credibility gap and start to convince the electorate that the PN is not a penniless version of the Labour Party.
Joseph Muscat will eventually have to bridge the credibility deficit he is creating, but his huge electoral victory means that time still has to pass before he is called to account. Busuttil does not enjoy that advantage.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt