Corbyn’s problem: voters care more about competence than policy

Let us start—for perhaps the only time between now and 8^th June—with some good news for Labour. Its broad approach to the UK’s departure from the European Union chimes with the public mood. On the issue at the heart of the election campaign, both the party and a majority of voters want a soft Brexit.

A few weeks ago, YouGov described two possible outcomes to the Brexit negotiations. Both included immigration controls, preserving the rights of EU citizens already in the UK and continuing co-operation with the EU on security and law enforcement. The “soft” version included free trade, while the “hard” version contained a limited trade agreement, with customs checks. By more than two-to-one—52 per cent to 22 per cent—respondents said “soft” Brexit would be good for Britain, while the “hard” version was supported by only 30 per cent, with 40 per cent saying it would be bad for the UK. Only 25 per cent thought the UK should go ahead with Brexit on these terms, while 52 per cent wanted the government either to call a fresh referendum (22 per cent) or reopen negotiations in order to secure a better deal (30 per cent).

So, when Jeremy Corbyn talks of scrapping the present government’s strategy for the Brexit talks (if he becomes prime minister), or opposing any deal that makes it harder for Britain to trade with the EU (if, by some chance, the Conservatives remain in office), he ought to attract large numbers of voters.

It isn’t happening; at any rate, it isn’t happening yet. Why not? Here are some more polling numbers that give us a clue to the answer. They come from an Evening Standard poll in late April. Ipsos-MORI asked people (a) which party they trusted most on a number of issues, and (b) which party leader they trusted most. On “handling Britain’s future relationship with the EU,” the responses were similar, and devastating. The Conservatives enjoyed a 31 per cent lead over Labour, while Theresa May enjoyed a 32 per cent lead over Corbyn. These were not quite the best figures for the Tories—their lead was even greater on the economy and defence—but they were not far off.

Since the Ipsos-MORI and YouGov polls sampled different respondents, we cannot analyse the two sets of findings together. But given that the polls’ political and demographic make-ups were similar, the conclusion is inescapable. Millions of voters who prefer Labour’s policies on Brexit, trust the Conservatives more to conduct the negotiations—despite May’s warnings, both explicit and implicit, that the end result might well be hard Brexit.

Another Ipsos-MORI finding, from their same poll, shows why. It repeated a question it asked just before the 2015 election about who would make the most capable prime minister. Two years ago, David Cameron (42 per cent) enjoyed a comfortable 15-point lead over Ed Miliband (27 per cent). As the parties gear up for this year’s current election campaign, the gulf is far greater, with May (61 per cent) a massive 38 points ahead of Corbyn (23 per cent).

So: on the issue that has provoked the current election and looks set to dominate it, millions of voters are torn are torn between their attitude to Brexit and their views of the two main party leaders. And, in the main, competence trumps policy.

This should come as no surprise, for this is not a new phenomenon. For some decades, political scientists have drawn a distinction between “positional” and “valence” voting. “Positional” voters tend to have strong views on the big issues of the day, and support the party whose policies best match those views. “Valence” voters tend to be less concerned about detailed policies, and to back the party and its leader whom they regard as strongest, most capable, most likely to get things done, and to tackle crises most effectively.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher won big election victories by winning the valence war—by being seen as tough and competent and even though a number of her signature policies, such as privatisation, were not popular. Tony Blair was a later valence winner in three general elections. Voters not only liked New Labour’s policies, on such things as the minimum wage and the NHS; they also, and crucially, regarded Labour as more competent than the Tories.

Of course, this analysis is a simplified version of how voters think. Few people are totally positional or valence-orientated in their political views. To some extent the two outlooks are connected. But the voters who decide elections are overwhelmingly valence voters, for those whose politics are driven by positional passions tend to be ones who identify strongly with a particular party, and are less likely to be swayed by such things as the personality of a party leader.

Floating voters, in contrast, tend to look at parties and their leaders and ask whether they are likely to be any good at running the country. When such voters contemplate a particular party leader and say “no,” then they are likely to conclude that he/she will screw up the economy and fail to keep his/her other promises, however attractive they sound. Corbyn must persuade voters not just that he has the right policies, on Brexit or anything else, but that he is up to the job at all.