There Is No Ceiling - The 'Corbyn Surge' Isn't Over

There are striking similarities in the way the British commentariat missed Corbyn's surge, and the way the American commentariat missed Trump's. 

Both candidates were, at first, a great source of ridicule. They were underestimated both in their appeal to voters and their campaigning abilities, and both outperformed expectations whenever they were challenged.

Then, after Trump saw a modest rise in his popularity in the Republican primaries, he was given a "ceiling" - a point above which his support could no longer rise; and one which a gaggle of pundits comically raised every ten days once he surpassed this arbitrary limit.

Trump himself was aware of this ceiling, and addressed the point in February 2016 speaking to Fox & Friends.

I watch these pundits, I've been watching them for a year. But I've been watching these pundits. They've been saying, well, they just add up numbers they forget when somebody drops out I get a lot of those votes. 

But Rubio would point to your favourable/unfavourable ratings. He did that last night. He says you've reached your ceiling, Mr Trump. 

Well they've been saying that Anna now for approximately six months - I've reached my ceiling. I started at 12 and I reached my ceiling, I went to 16 and they said "that is the ceiling - it's the most he's gonna get" and then the national polls are even higher, you know, in the national polls I'm at 44. And that's with five people. That's a lot of people, and I'm at 44. 

Since April something similar has been happening with Jeremy Corbyn

Seven days after the general election, polling from YouGov gave Jeremy Corbyn record favourability ratings.

This compounds a good week for the Labour leader as he pegged level with Theresa May on the question of 'best prime minister', and a weekend survey from the election's most accurate pollster, Survation, gave Labour a six-point lead.

I didn't think Corbyn's Labour was capable of this. pic.twitter.com/bgVaD01omu

— Keumars Afifi-Sabet (@Keumars) June 11, 2017

YouGov's graphical representation of these ratings since August 2016 puts Corbyn's dramatic surge into context - with the turnaround happening over the course of eight weeks.

Corbyn too was given several ceilings during the election campaign, above which his 'surge' should not have exceeded.

What an amazing trip it's been this campaign pic.twitter.com/MtavwwngKS

— Nick Srnicek (@n_srnck) May 31, 2017

Moreover, the pollsters, minus Survation, to some extent herded in the final stretch as the last clutch of polls, including YouGov's tweaked final projection, wrongly reported a substantial Conservative lead.

Like Trump, Corbyn defied received wisdom, and has now emerged as one of Britain's most favoured politicians, having once been its most disliked.

What sparked the surge, and why it seems to be spreading at an unprecedented pace, has not yet been fully explored by the commentariat, but as things stand his meteoric rise shows no signs of slowing.

How Sustainable Is A 'ConDUP' Alliance?

As talks between the Tories and the DUP continue, journalists have made efforts to highlight the DUP's hard-right social conservatism and support from paramilitary organisations.

The narrative, engulfing a Conservative Party in disarray (hence unable to muster a strong enough counter), is that by cosying up to the DUP they are in effect aligning themselves with, even endorsing, the party's more extreme positions.

But, then again, ministers have made a point of suggesting the Conservatives "have a lot in common with our friends in the DUP" on sofa interviews this weekend, seemingly tone-deaf to the fact the only DUP positions being communicated to the British public are anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and climate change denial.

Also read: Never Mind Kingmakers - The DUP Will Be Queenslayers For Theresa May

While an alliance does not necessarily equate to an out-and-out ideological alignment, it is inconceivable that any arrangement will be forged without the DUP extracting some capital from the Tories; the DUP are known as "tough negotiators".

Moreover; the Conservatives are desperate. As the Liberal Democrats are no longer a viable option (for either party, and for obvious reasons), the DUP is the only voting bloc Theresa May can conceivably court to get her legislative programme off the ground.

Let's assume, then, they do work out a deal, and the Tories are able to move forward in government. The question still remains over how reliable the DUP will be in terms of day-to-day politics; with conflicting positions on universal benefits, maintaining the pensions triple lock, and others.

To make things more complicated, as the New Statesman's Stephen Bush points out, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives the DUP more leverage over the Tories than first thought because a government no longer falls if it loses a budget or Queen's speech vote, only confidence votes, meaning the DUP can extract concessions over the course of the parliament in exchange for its support on a host of minor legislative issues.

My assessment, of course, does not take into account the added complexity of domestic Northern Irish politics, the new clutch of Scottish Tory MPs with loyalties to Ruth Davidson, nor does it take into account the implications for the Good Friday Agreement.

Any arrangement the two parties reach cannot possibly be sustainable in the long-term. Either we will have a lame duck government for the next five years, or the Conservatives will become frustrated enough to agree to calling an early election. My guess would be after the Brexit negotiations.

Is ‘Brand May’ a Show of Confidence, or CCHQ’s Insurance Policy?

In light of Theresa May’s historically high approval ratings, the Tory push for power has taken the form of a conventional US presidential campaign putting the prime minister front-and-centre.

It is so central to the campaign, that where you would normally expect to find ‘Conservative’ or ‘Conservative Party’ on official party branding, you will find instead ‘Theresa May’s Team’ - with party identity relatively obscured.

In the lead up to the local elections, CCHQ bought wraparound adverts with a host of local newspapers to promote not the Conservative Party, but Theresa May, a feature also found on leaflets, and in candidates’ messaging. The Conservative battle bus too is emblazoned with 'Theresa May for Britain'.

The thinking behind this is clear. Not only is Theresa May more popular than her party, but at the start of the campaign she boasted historically high approval ratings - higher than Thatcher or Blair at their peaks - with Jeremy Corbyn languishing far behind.

There are many theories behind her record-breaking popularity, from being a “basic prime minister for basic times” to having the luxury of being directly contrasted with her opponent - somebody widely regarded as being not up to the job.

This tactic isn't in itself unusual, with her predecessor running a similar campaign centred on 'competence over chaos under Ed Miliband'. Yet ‘Brand Dave’ did not replace the Tory identity; the two complemented each other to good effect. But this idea - in its current manifestation - is being pushed to the point of absurdity.

For instance, Theresa May is name-checked 16 times in the conservative party manifesto. By contrast, David Cameron was mentioned six times in 2015, and three times in 2010. In 1997, the Labour manifesto mentioned Tony Blair by name once.

Beyond serving as a handy electoral device, exploiting the unforeseen popularity of ‘Brand May’, perhaps this positioning allows the party to shield ‘Brand Tory’ from May’s most devastating flaws, should they manifest in the coming years.

Her indecisiveness, cautiousness, hypercentralised management style, and an over-reliance on a closely-knit team of special advisers (who carry torrid reputations) are examples of traits not adequately scrutinised; given most of the printing press are considered ‘on side’, and the opposition leader is seen as relatively hapless in the eyes of the public.

***

‘Theresa Maybe’, the Economist’s leader column on ‘Britain’s indecisive premiere’, was a frank assessment of the prime minister’s record six months after she took office, noting “it is hard to name a single signature policy, and easy to cite U-turns.”

This damning list, yet growing, includes backing down from a promise to put workers on company boards, reversing plans to compel firms to list foreign employees, scrapping Budget proposals to raise National Insurance, and changing her widely-berated ‘Dementia Tax’.

Moreover, the entire social care saga has exposed Theresa May’s greatest weaknesses in the unforgiving spotlight of a general election campaign; which leads CCHQ’s almost absurdist decision to make her the sole face of the next five years seem something of a masterstroke.

Moving forwards, the manner in which her flaws have been exposed with such ease may affect the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

As the FT’s Janan Ganesh has noted: “If Mrs May did not know that old people feel attached to their asset base, she was derelict. If she did and (admirably) resolved to face them down, then her resolve does not amount to much. Colleagues who defended her proposal in public, lobby interests who fought it and any EU negotiators tuning in from the continent will infer the same lesson: this prime minister is strong and stable, until you test her.”

With Britain facing its greatest juncture in modern history the risk of wrecking our future prospects in trade, diplomacy, and prosperity, has never been greater. And, courtesy of leaks, we know preliminary discussions between Theresa May and her European counterparts have been disastrous.

By associating the next government with 'Brand May’, almost exclusively, CCHQ has given the party the breathing space it needs should May’s tenure end in catastrophe, with the foundations set for a clean rebuilding process - but not before first throwing the prime minister under the bus.