The election campaign suffers from an optimism deficit

The writer was head of the Downing Street policy unit under David Cameron

When it finally came, Britain’s election announcement was a damp squib. Forget the sewage in our rivers, hospital queues and overcrowded prisons: this government couldn’t even rustle up an umbrella for the prime minister as he braved torrential rain on the steps of Downing Street.

For many of us, the overwhelming sense is relief at ending the uncertainty. It is 14 years to the month that David Cameron came to power, presiding for five over a coalition that was enduring and stable. But since 2016, Britain has been buffeted by Covid, war in Ukraine, the self-inflicted damage of Brexit and four different administrations masquerading under the Conservative label. Rishi Sunak is seeking to run on his own record over less than three years. But the country will be judging the Tories on the past 14.

A prime minister’s power, at these moments, lies in being able to frame the terms of the campaign. The problem for Sunak is that the country is barely listening. Those who want Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to be more visionary underestimate the extent to which voters would welcome not having to keep trudging to the polls. No political party has ever been returned after such a long period in office — let alone one that has produced such volatility. 

Sunak’s decision to pitch himself as the man to keep Britain safe in a dangerous world is tricky, given that voters’ top three concerns are domestic: health, the economy and immigration. The bizarre announcement by the Cabinet Office that Britons should stockpile three days’ worth of food and water against some future disaster was presumably designed to underpin the “security” message. It’s legitimate to ask whether Labour will match Tory spending on defence. But why further demoralise a country already anxious and angry, forcing us to think about possible power cuts, cyber attacks and floods?

What Britain needs is hope. Not bombast or magical thinking — we have had enough of both — but clarity and optimism. The positive Conservative message that the economy has turned a corner is at odds with the fear strategy.

Starmer is also cautious, given the tight financial situation, knowing that many interest groups expect handouts from a Labour government, whatever shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves says. He is at least striking a slightly upbeat note in talking about a “spirit of service”, promising to “unlock pride and potential”. In contrast to each of their predecessors, both he and Sunak are encouragingly serious. But a bit more positivity wouldn’t go amiss.    

Starmer remains vulnerable on the lack of detail about what he would do in office. So carefully has he played his cards that the public can’t tell if he’s hiding some secret plan or doesn’t have much of one at all. He will probably get over the line with a cautious prospectus; voters will give him the benefit of the doubt. But he does need to ensure his future cabinet is signed up to the detail. It is easier to unite a party ahead of an election than in office. The country cannot afford another period of internecine warfare at the top.  

Had the election been held later in the year, Labour might have faced more scrutiny. But elections are rarely decided on policy. The outcome depends on values and trust: the Conservative party has squandered that. The cronyism and court politics of Boris Johnson made a laughing-stock of the public; the Liz Truss “moron premium” after the mini-Budget disaster made Britain uninvestable. A byproduct has been deepening cynicism about politics.

It is therefore encouraging to see how many talented and moderate people are standing for parliament for the first time. In one sense it is astonishing that young people with other options should choose a career that has rarely looked more thankless, or more destructive to personal life. But it gives me hope — along with the Conservatives’ reluctance to give Lord Frost a seat and Labour’s refusal to let Jeremy Corbyn back into the party.

The timing upset some Tories, who feel Sunak has denied them a chance to recover from bruising council losses. But had he stayed much longer the prime minister could have been accused, like Gordon Brown in 2010, of “squatting” in Downing Street. He and his advisers were also desperate to stem the momentum of the Reform party, which unlike its predecessor Ukip aims to put up candidates in every Conservative seat. Setting the July date has made that less likely and flushed out Nigel Farage, who will not fight for a seat or play a leadership role.

In the next six weeks, we will hear a great deal from both main parties about the economy. The Conservatives will point to falling inflation and high employment rates; Labour will talk about stalled living standards and energy costs. What we need to know is their plans for the future. We will hear little about potential tax rises — despite the IMF’s dire predictions — or about the EU. The Tories don’t want to remind voters of Brexit, Labour fears to reopen that question and even the Liberal Democrats talk as much about the NHS and housing.

Sunak’s start could hardly have been less auspicious. But Starmer will come under more pressure in the next six weeks than he has ever faced. Neither man has led their party into a general election; neither is a seasoned campaigner.  

Great oratory is not something we can expect. Many voters may switch over to watch the European football championships. But after a run of unelected leaders, the power now returns to the electorate to award someone a clear mandate: and that is cheering in itself.