RETORIK | I A Journey skriver Tony Blair om hur han underminerade förtroendet för de konservativa partiledarna.
Det är ingen mening med att försöka ta ära och redlighet från en politisk motståndaren. Det är aldrig trovärdigt. Bättre att då vara lite mer subtil i sin politiska kommunikation.
Genom att plantera ett frö hos väljarna att motståndaren inte har det som krävs för jobbet som premiärminister kan man, enligt Blair, långsiktigt underminera förtroendet för motståndaren.
With each successive Tory leader, I would develop a line of attack, but I only did so after a lot of thought. Usually I did it based on close observation at PMQs. I never made it overly harsh. I always tried to make it telling. The aim was to get the non-politician nodding. I would wonder not what appealed to a Labour Party Conference in full throttle, but what would appeal to my old mates at the Bar, who wanted a reasonable case to be made; and who, if it were made, would rally.
So I defined Major as weak; Hague as better at jokes than judgment; Howard as an opportunist; Cameron as a flip-flop, not knowing where he wanted to go. (The Tories did my work for me in undermining Iain Duncan Smith.) Expressed like that, these attacks seem flat, rather mundane almost, and not exactly inspiring—but that’s their appeal. Any one of those charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders at those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.
Bild: Pocketupplagan av A Journey av Tony Blair (Arrow Books, 2011)
the Campaign Dossier 
Kommentera