South African cricketer Hansie Cronje captained South Africa in 53 tests, of which he won 27, before his career was brought to a premature halt by a match-fixing scandal. Tragically, Cronje was killed in a plane crash just two years later.
The destruction of Cronje's reputation was all the more dramatic because of his standing among his colleagues. He was the supreme example of a traditional sporting hero, a man of total integrity that was underpinned by a strong Christian faith. But the pedestal was just too high, and Cronje went from unimpeachable to outcast virtually overnight.
Politicians who bask in the sunlight of their fans' adoration would do well to learn this lesson from Cronje: the greater the altitude of your moral high ground, the more it hurts when you fall off it.
Tony Blair must know what it feels like to fall into the crevasse of public opprobrium. In 1997 his approval rating touched 75 per cent, but when he handed over to Gordon Brown in 2007 it was down to 25 per cent.
Likewise - this will come as a shock to some - George W Bush enjoyed the highest Gallup approval ratings of any president this side of Pearl Harbor. In late September 2001, after the attack on the World Trade Center, it reached 90 per cent before tumbling to 25 per cent by 2008. Nick Clegg must be looking nervously over his shoulder right now.
In the instant poll conducted immediately after the second leaders' debate on 22 April, he was confirmed as the only ‘honest john' in town (see graph, above right).
During the election campaign, Clegg was ahead of both David Cameron and Gordon Brown on almost every measure tested, including: ‘understands the problems faced by people like me', ‘he deserves a chance to run the country after the election', ‘would make the best prime minister', ‘could bring a fresh start for the country'.
As the Liberal Democrats are finding out, public opinion is fickle indeed. Prior to the general election, the case for reducing the deficit was well made with the public, and people were adamant that it should be done by cutting public spending over raising taxes (67 per cent) - even though there was an appetite for increasing spending oneducation and health in real terms.
But now the impact of the cuts is becoming apparent, and the proportion who fear they will be affected negatively by them has steadily increased to well over half the population.
So voters are looking for a politician to blame. And they have found one. Tuition fees have become Nick Clegg's ‘Cronje moment'. No longer is he the only clean politician in town. To misquote Vince Cable, the deputy prime minister has undergone a remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Mr Bean to Stalin.
If proof were needed of his fall from grace, look no further than the ITV Cuts Index poll in November 2010 which found that 57 per cent of people agreed ‘the Liberal Democrats lied to the electorate when they promised not to support increased tuition fees'. The Conservatives, by contrast, get clean away with it because opponents of the tuition fee increase fi nd nothing untoward in the Tories being merely as ruthless as they deem necessary.
The public accepts the need to reduce the budget deficit, and they accept that cuts are inevitable. But the case has not been made for the scope and scale proposed by the chancellor
There are already signs in the polls that Labour's retort, that the cuts are too deep and too fast, is having resonance. A poll for the Local Government Association (LGA) in June 2010 explored this in some detail, and found 70 per cent felt that some services should be protected even if it means bigger cuts elsewhere or even the prospect of higher taxes. However, the poll also identifies some serious problems ahead.
George Osborne reiterated in the spending review his pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of GDP on international aid by 2013, but in the LGA poll overseas aid was third on the list of what to chop to save cash. By contrast only two per cent of people thought there was scope to cut police spending, before the government announced in October that central government funding for the police service will be cut by a whopping 20 per cent in real terms by 2014-15.
A further problem for the coalition is that people are not convinced the cuts - which almost three-quarters fear will hit their standard of living personally - are being wielded fairly.
In the November 2010 ITV News Cuts Index people disagreed that the cuts are fair by 50 per cent to 36 per cent, they felt things ‘in this country' are not generally heading in the right direction by 43 per cent to 34 per cent, and 42 per cent to 26 per cent believe Britain is on course for a second wave of recession.
To sum up: the public accepts the need to reduce the budget deficit, and they accept that cuts are inevitable. But the case has not been made for the scope and scale proposed by the chancellor, and there is a sense of gloom setting in.
The leaders' debates led to wildly unpredictable effects on the political landscape, the impact of which we are still feeling. By bursting into the public's consciousness, Nick Clegg created an image of trust and expectation, and he is being punished for failing to sustain it. Had he not been so popular, people would not have been so disappointed.
The Liberal Democrats used to be described as the Conservatives' human shield, the velvet glove inside which the Tory fist would punch the economy back on track. If Nick Clegg's ratings continue to slide, a better metaphor may be a millstone round the Conservatives' neck.
Andrew Hawkins is chairman of ComRes
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!