Mediaboss Marketing

When, on April 18, British Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election for June 8, the expectation was that she would romp to victory over the opposition. Crush the saboteurs! cried the right-wing Daily Mail. Whether it was called to strengthen her Brexit negotiating position with the European Unionand members of her own Conservative Party, or to bolt the armor of popularityto her image, May and almost every political observer believed that June 8 would end with a massive Conservative majority over the Labour Party and its supposedly hapless leader Jeremy Corbyn.

But events have played out differently. A 16 percent lead for the Conservatives on April 18 has shrunk to 7 percent in less than two months.Because of the strength of third parties in Britain, Corbyn only needs to overperform by a few percentage points(an average polling error, to borrow from Nate Silver) for May to fallshort of a majority. Regardless, the dream of the Conservative landslide looks to be dead and the circumstances of Laboursrecovery can bea lesson for progressives elsewhere, including the United States.

Most of Labours recovery has taken place since the start of May (the month, not the politician), coinciding with two developments. Britains general election broadcast rules, which requireTV outlets to maintain due impartiality during campaigning, kicked in early May. From whenCorbyn became party leader until very recently, the vast majority of major media outlets including Labour-leaning publications such as the Guardian were critical of him. During the campaign though, while newspapers and tabloids have remained partisan, the broadcast rules have freed Corbyn to make his case to the publicdirectly on television. Surprise, surprise: Corbyn has performed well in pre-election appearances, while May (the politician, not the month) has refused to debate other candidates directly and has looked shaky answering questions.

Were unlikely to see similarly restrictive broadcast rules in the United States, but progressives here can learn from the second development: the release of the parties manifestos the equivalent of a party platform in the United States, albeitcarrying somewhat more weight. The Conservative manifestobroadly avoided specifics, including how muchproposals on housing and other issues would cost. Its imprecision magnified Mays struggles in talking with voters. Nor did it help May that the program originally included cuts to in-home care for the elderly, a key Conservative constituency. May reversed on that idea, but not before damage was done.

On the other side, for years, Labour manifestos were incrementalist, offering small changes and tweaks to existing programs. The 2017 version is far bolder: free university tuition, more money for the National Health Services and other major initiatives,paid for by taxes on corporations and the wealthiest. The platforms clarity and detail contrasted favorably with the Conservatives vagueness, while energizing the Labour base, especially young voters. (Of course, getting them to vote is another matter.) Corbyns Labour recognizes that when votersthink the system is broken and major change is required, parties need to go big with their ideas. If your opponent is stumbling, as May has, newly persuadable voters want solutions not pandering.

To be clear, Labour policies cannot be replicated unchanged in the United States.Corbyns Labour is much further left-of-center than even the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. But as liberals and progressives in the United Statesdebate what kind of policies to offer in 2018 and beyond, Corbyns recovery and Mays difficulties again show that boldness doesnt backfire; voters reward it.

See more here:
What American liberals can learn from Jeremy Corbyn's campaign - Washington Post (blog)