Some weeks ago Tony Blair’s former spin master Alistair Campbell wrote an article claiming that what political candidates needed most, was S and M. With that kind of hook in the opening lines I’m sure he reeled in many readers as they tried to figure out how a little light spanking and bondage could boost an electoral campaign.
The younger generations are not as impressed by negative reports about Old Labour as the older age cohort- Claire Bonello
But Campbell’s article was not a reference to how the chief whip could take Fifty Shades of Grey as a campaign handbook. In this context, Campbell’s ‘S and M’ stands for Strategy and Morale, which he thinks are vital for a political campaign to be a successful one.
I find it interesting, but very telling that ‘S’ for ‘substance’ does not enter into the winning campaign equation for Campbell. It seems to be a given that campaigning and getting elected has nothing much to do with what one actually does, or is expected to do, once in office. Voters have almost come to expect a hard-fought campaign which is big on confrontation but which is quite irrelevant to the issues materially affecting the country.
In fact, substance does not feature very high on either the Nationalist or Labour Party’s agenda, it seems, as both campaign in a policy vacuum where the electorate is reminded about the awfulness of the other party but given no specifics as to what the party is for.
With substance out of the equation, it all boils down to the other two factors of strategy and morale – and at this point of the electoral campaign it would seem that Labour have the upper hand.
Here’s why. Perhaps rather late in the day, the party led by Joseph Muscat has cottoned on to the fact that perception is all that matters – in the heat of an electoral campaign at least.
Visual impressions matter a lot. A politician may have eminently sensible and well-thought-out plans and policies but if he doesn’t manage to convey a forceful and likeable image of himself, he will flounder at the polls. Proof of this is Mitt Romney’s bounce back following his debate with US President Barack Obama.
The Republican candidate said nothing much of note. He repeated the generalities he had referred to before, but he did so in a vigorous and confident manner which made viewers crown him as victor of that debate. The assured performance in that debate went a long way towards remedying the damage which Romney himself had inflicted to his campaign with his numerous gaffes and propensity to get flustered. One polished performance erased the memory of many of Romney’s lacklustre appearances before that.
Having realised that image is so important, Labour has gone for a complete overhaul of its image.
Gone are the tub-thumping speeches by old-timers. The embarassing veterans are hidden in the audience (never to be zoomed in upon by the cameras) while Muscat welcomes all to the ‘national movement’. He is surrounded by attractive young people whose average age must be 25 or thereabouts.
The flaming torca flags are replaced by an anodyne white version. The Labour billboards featuring queues, spoof those of the Nationalist Party but they strike a chord and are not overtly negative.
At this point Labour doesn’t need to attack the PN, it’s simply allowing it to self-destruct. The Labour Party is not one which will set any hearts on fire but one which will roll slowly into Castille as the PN careens out of control. No wonder morale is high in the red corner.
The Nationalist Party on the other hand, insists on disregarding its internal problems and shaky leadership situation and resorting to its much-used strategy of harking back to Labour’s unsavoury past. However, this is a strategy of diminishing returns, as the younger generations are not as impressed by negative reports about Old Labour as the older age cohort.
What is coming across more strongly is that the party is rudderless, with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi having no clear strategy about how to cope with rebel MPs Franco Debono and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. With this problem overshadowing every aspect of the PN campaign it is impinging on the morale of the grassroots and compunding the general air of misery in the PN camp.
• I am very annoyed to see that practically all reports to Meyrem Bugeja’s death refer to her as ‘a Moroccan woman’ or even as ‘the Moroccan’. Bugeja was a 40-year-old mother of two. She suffered greatly in life. A glance at court records which are available to the public will attest to this.
She was pregnant with twins when she was found dead in suspicious circumstances in her home. She lay dead in her home while her children, who had returned from school, knocked on the door of their home, wondering what had become of their mother. And yet the titles that headed the reports about this tragedy simply passed her off as a ‘Moroccan woman’ as if her nationality had anything to do with her death or was even remotely relevant to the news item.
Bugeja’s nationality had no direct bearing on the way she died, there being absolutely no evidence of a hate crime having been committed. There was no need to mention her being Moroccan in order to identify her, as the publication of her name and address would have been sufficient for this purpose. So the ‘Moroccan woman’ tag, though factual, was quite irrelevant.
I doubt that similar tragic incidents involving women are headed ‘Maltese woman found dead’. Why stress the nationality of a victim of crime instead of highlighting her status?
Bugeja was a much-loved mother to two young children whose life has now been thrown in tilt. Yes, she may have been Moroccan, which is irrelevant. How and why she died is far more important.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt