Andrew Crines looks
at the Conservative rhetoric aimed at undermining Labour and argues
that the appraisal of Ed Miliband as an unworthy foe may have laid the
foundations for a degree of destructive complacency amongst the Tories.
The rhetorical attitude of the Conservative Party towards the Labour
Party is key to understanding the broader relationship between the
Coalition and Opposition. The strategy for the Conservatives is to
simultaneously divorce both Labour and Liberal Democrat progressives
whilst also attributing the Blair/Brown premierships for the global
economic downturn. By doing so, this prevents the Labour
Party from
exploiting any possible splinters within the junior partner.
Moreover, the Conservatives aim to
portray Ed Miliband as ‘the wrong choice’ for Labour, but the ideal
choice for them. By choosing Ed over David, Labour have stepped back
from posing a serious rhetorical challenge. This is enhanced by
connecting Miliband with the narrative of left wing radicalism which
grew during the early 1980s and has been exploited through Conservative
rhetoric since. In order for this strategy to prove most effective,
David Cameron must portray the Coalition as more than a numerical
necessity. Rather, it is for the survival of the British economy that
brought together Liberal ‘progressives’ and Conservative
‘freemarketeers’, subsequently attacking Labour through the rhetoric of
‘in the national interest’. This national interest binds the two
together, and seeks to exclude Labour from the debate over the economic
strategy.
