Normandy Beaches – A Political Note from Lodestone Communications Chairman David Wild
The role that D-Day plays in the British psyche and in the West more generally is that of a blood sacrifice for freedom. The Second World War and its aftermath still largely defines the contours of Western geopolitical strategy – the defeat of Germany, the start of the Cold War and creation of NATO, followed by the Franco- (West) German alliance and the EU, and the continued US commitment to European security – were all dependent on the sacrifice on the beaches of Normandy. This emotional as well as political symbol of citizen armies of ordinary lads storming ashore is a wellspring of political capital for use in election propaganda, as well as Hollywood film. As luck would have it Rishi Sunak is the British Prime Minister who could take advantage of the prestige that will come from hobnobbing with world leaders in the presence of very old veterans and now their quite old sons and daughters, in the lovely sunshine in Normandy. Both Biden and Trudeau travelled there because of the potency of the myth.
But Rishi Sunak managed to turn this golden opportunity into a golden gaffe by leaving early. David Cameron did not leave early. Keir Starmer did not leave early. In fact, Starmer appeared to look like a Prime Minister in waiting and Lord Cameron looked at what he could have won. Current polling has it that the only demographic with the Tories ahead is the 65+ cohort, exactly the people who will be most upset at Sunak’s lack of emotional intelligence. Now Sunak has had to apologise. The competition for the worst moment in Sunak’s campaign is now becoming a crowded field.
In contrast, Keir Starmer had a whole day on Monday burnishing his credentials as ‘sound on Defence’, and with 14 ex-military candidates standing for Labour, many in winnable seats, this will represent the largest influx of military veterans into the PLP since the second world war generation. This is a real and important development in Labour becoming a plausible natural governing party.
What is the point of the leaders’ debates? Well, that depends on which leader you are.
For Keir Starmer, the point is to reinforce the central message of his campaign: we’ve changed, this country needs to change and I’m not mad – promise.
For Rishi Sunak, the point is somewhat different and harder to land: I know everything has been rubbish and your mortgage has gone up and you’re sick of all this but that other fella is deranged and I have a plan.
Fundamentally, Rishi needed this debate to move the polls. Starmer needed it not to.
The jitters were clear from the start – neither leader sounded completely confident in their opening statements, but it must be said that Sunak’s was shakier and appeared more nerve-wracked than Starmer’s.
Sunak scored an early win by relentlessly – monotonously – delivering sharp lines about supposed tax rises under a future Labour Government. But as soon as questions ventured into the state of British public services, the PM came quite unstuck. He appeared both petulant and dismissive when answering questions on the NHS and his habit of staring down at his shoes while Starmer answered questions didn’t work for him. He alternated this with shouting and hectoring in a petulant manner that did little to dispel the notion that he finds it very hard to deal with challenge.
Rishi Sunak’s central argument – as elicited and illustrated by the questions on education – is this: everything good over the last fourteen years I will own, everything bad is nothing to do with me guv. That is a weak argument, objectively. And it doesn’t really work.
That said, Rishi successfully landed the idea that Labour will raise tax on ‘ordinary families’ by £2000. He managed to do so because Keir was far too slow to interject and correct him. And that is a blow to Labour, in terms of narrative if not in terms of reality.
Barbara Streisand, famously, enjoyed her ‘farewell’ retirement tour so much that she repeated the experience on multiple occasions over the following decade or so. There’s always been something of the diva about Nigel Farage – a man who truly believes that politics is showbusiness for the aesthetically challenged – and, just like Barbara, in the end the call of the spotlight has trumped the desire for an easier life.
Ruthless Inefficiency – a note from our Co-Founder and Chairman, David Wild
Seasoned Labour grandees will be toasting the jurors in New York who yesterday found Trump guilty because the story of Labour’s handling of late candidate impositions – exemplified by the Diane Abbott row – was starting to get out of hand. The media, already bored by the seemingly inevitable Labour jog to election victory, had seized on the issue as a convenient vehicle for testing Labour’s ability to cope with unforeseen challenge.
This challenge was fast widening and broadening into a full examination of the way Keir Starmer was running the Labour Party – with what can only be characterised as ruthless inefficiency.
Ruthless in the way that the Party was dealing with any potential problem MPs, but also in the way that so many safe seats were being made vacant and filled – in very short order – by central party command, rather than involving the local Labour people at all. This always causes griping but is usually capped by the small number of examples and quiet handling. A lot of the beneficiaries of this ruthlessness are long term Starmer allies and supporters, plus high calibre individuals who will add depth and authority to the Parliamentary Labour Party.
And inefficiency in the way that Labour’s election grid was knocked completely off course this week, and in the wasted time and energy in spent dealing with the completely avoidable kerfuffle.
The sheer scale and controversial targets of this ruthlessness had stirred up a very unwelcome brew of identity politics, righteous indignation and media attention driven by the natural tendency of political journalists to overexcitement.
This is an interesting moment in the emotional flow of the election campaign, but one that will be forgotten in the glow of the inevitable Labour victory. Or maybe not. Is this the start of the great slide of Labour’s hopes of a crushing big win or just unwelcome turbulence?
An under-priced factor in our political system is the human need for drama. Politicians are people and people get bored. People also panic, and people also do things – sometimes – not out of rational self-interest but in a fit of pique or long-felt resentment.
What drove ERG stalwart and immigration hawk, Nathalie Elphicke into the open arms of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party this week? Well, we should take her at some of her word. Her constituency has suffered tremendously from the influx of small boats and – despite repeated and increasingly shrill promises – Rishi Sunak has failed to stem the tide. Like everyone else who has spent any time thinking it through, Elphicke is sceptical that the ‘Rwanda plan’ will have anything more than a marginal impact. And so she has looked at Labour’s plans, believes they have a chance of succeeding and has defected. As we say, there is probably some element of truth to the story she tells about her decision: but that’s not a big or good enough explanation, is it?
These aren’t midterms. The next time a Tory MP looks you in the eye and says ‘midterm local elections are always difficult for governing parties’ you should feel free to laugh in their face. We have six months, at best, before a general election. This isn’t voters playing hard to get, it’s voters telling the Conservative Party to get out. On the basis of the results so far, Keir Starmer is on course to win a majority of more than 150 seats.
Schadenfreude might not be an attractive sentiment but it is an inescapably human one. There is something delicious about watching one’s opponents experience extreme discomfort. We may wish that we didn’t feel that way, but it can be almost impossible to resist. A great many Scottish politicians are today enjoying the sweet but slightly grubby sensation that schadenfreude can illicit.
Who would you ring if, at half past three in the morning, you found yourself locked in a flat by ‘bad people’ who were demanding five thousand pounds for your release? Your mum, maybe? Or your partner? Or a trusted friend of many years? Or would you – if you found yourself in such a spot of utterly baffling peril – ring a 78-year-old former employee?
In the greater scheme of things, Mark Menzies’s plight isn’t that big of a deal. Britain has a long, proud history of returning to Parliament eccentrics with rackety private lives. And unlike, say, Jeremy Thorpe or John Profumo, Mark Menzies is an MP of vanishingly little importance. He held neither power nor office at the time of his early morning imprisonment. He held only the whip. And that is gone now too.
It would be easy to make a joke about how desperately Rishi Sunak needs an Easter miracle. Our Prime Minister certainly has the appearance of a man who believes he is being unfairly crucified – the weight of the world piled upon his slender shoulders. And he does sometimes give the impression that, in his heart of hearts, he’d quite like to react to any given outrage from his backbenches with a cry of ‘I’m not a naughty boy, I’m the messiah!’.
But despite all of that, resurrection looks an unlikely prospect for Sunak. He’s twenty points behind in the polls. His own party gives every impression of loathing him. Ministers are dropping like flies, and the local elections are going to haemorrhage Tory councillors, reducing further his activist base.
Little wonder, in light of all that, that aides to the Prime Minister have let it be known this week that he believes defeat ‘now looks inevitable’ – well… yah – and that Sunak is going to ‘concentrate on his legacy’.
As a purpose-driven organisation and a B Corp, Lodestone is committed to supporting on a pro bono basis some of the many not-for-profit causes we believe in. While we can never find enough time for all of these, we’re always eager to help if we can.
In 2022, we supported Khaled El Mayet’s incredible work to deliver ambulances to Ukraine. Khaled launched his Ambulances for Ukraine initiative in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s illegal invasion, driven by a desire to ensure care and treatment could reach the most vulnerable people in Ukraine and show that love is more powerful than hate.
We supported Khaled by developing a core messaging and briefing document, outlining the initiative’s key impacts and motivations, as well as developing a strategic approach to media and stakeholder engagement to ensure further awareness-raising for Khaled’s work. We’re proud to have been able to play a small role in supporting Khaled’s vital and life-saving work.
