Is Rishi Sunak opting for a submarine strategy? And is it working?

Rishi Sunak’s appearance at the Liaison Committee earlier this week had us thinking “where has the Prime Minister been?” The newest occupant of No.10 seems to have made a conscious decision to keep a low-profile over recent weeks.

It’s not hard to think why his team might be going above and beyond to keep Sunak out of the media spotlight at the moment. Between mass strikes bringing rail, post, and health services to a near halt, as well as freezing temperatures coupled with sky-rocketing energy bills, it’s not something you would choose to be associated with if you can help it.

The No.10 operation seems to be thinking this as well; whilst Ministers have been sent on the broadcast rounds to take on the likes of Mick Lynch and Pat Cullen, there has been relative silence on the matter from the Prime Minister himself.

Economists are estimating that the UK is due to lose 1.5 million working days in December alone due to strikes, making it the worst month for disruption since July 1989. One might have thought - given all the Thatcher rhetoric we got during this summer’s leadership contest - that Rishi would be chomping at the bit to brandish his best Thatcherite characteristics and take the unions on head-on.

Instead, Rishi seems to be opting for the ‘submarine strategy’ we saw Boris Johnson and Theresa May occasionally attempt - where they were kept out of the media spotlight apart from carefully orchestrated appearances and interventions. In this way, Sunak is (ideally) saved from being associated with the winter of discontent that rages on.

But are there signs that this strategy is paying off for the Prime Minister? Potentially.

Whilst Labour are still leading the Conservative Party in the polls by a long-way, recent figures from IPOS suggest that it is much closer when you just look at Rishi vs. Keir. The latest Ipos Political Pulse shows that Rishi Sunak is just trailing behind the Labour leader when it comes to favourability ratings, with Starmer sitting on a net score of -6 compared to Sunak’s -10. In the first six weeks or so since Sunak took office, Labour’s average lead is down from 30 to 20 points, and Starmer’s lead as “best Prime Minister” is down from a high of 29 points under Truss, to just five under Sunak.

Will it work long-term though? Attempts at the submarine strategy don’t seem to have worked out too well for Rishi’s predecessors…

Labour's Lordless Britain

Picking your battles in opposition is hard. Criticising decisions and the delivery of the incumbent government can get you so far, but voters also need to know what you would do if elected. You need a few points of difference. A few wedge issues that point to the wider narrative you’re trying to tell about voting for “us” or “them”.

Which takes us to Keir Starmer’s announcement that a Labour Government would abolish the House of Lords. On one level, this works as a wedge issue. A Labour Party calling for an elected Lords provides a clear contrast with the Tories who are content with the status quo. What’s more, the Tories are in the middle of their latest spate of honours scandals, with Boris Johnson’s resignation appointments taking his total to 106 despite only three years in office. In roughly the same time Brown appointed only 34 peers and neither he nor Blair indulged in a resignation honours list.

Johnson’s yet to be sworn in nominations will take the upper house to over 800 eligible working members. When combined with the 650 MPs in the Commons that leaves the UK with one of the largest legislatures in the world, second only to China, a country of 1.4 billion people. Surely, the sheer scale of the Lords means reform is essential?

Well this may be true, but from a communications perspective Labour’s approach is full of pitfalls. For a start it’s not clear many people care. Yes, recent polling from UCL shows the majority of Brits would support an elected upper chamber. But is it a priority issue? Is it an issue which helps get out the vote? We’re not so sure.

It also falls foul of the trap political parties so often fall into - talking about a policy that only really affects politicians. Starmer is right to say that action needs to be taken 'to restore trust in politics'. But is changing a few politicians’ jobs really the way to do that? The public are concerned about the economy, the NHS, cost of living, inflation, energy bills, housing. How about restoring trust in politics by doing something about that?

Tackling the public’s concerns is the final problem. In that now infamous interview in June 2016, in the final days of an equally infamous referendum on the United Kingdom's future with the European Union, Michael Gove blankly stated that the British people had had enough of experts. The Tories could be accused of latching onto that ethos ever since, appointing peer after peer who are experts in the party faithful rather than possessing the skill to scrutinise legislation that will affect generations to come.

But this is where the real nub of the issue with Lords reform lies. Despite the Lords overflowing with copious amounts of cronies, a great deal of talent also graces its chamber. This talent, over the years, has been invaluable in the legislative process holding the government to account and introducing pivotal changes in areas from social welfare to ESG. As Baroness Hayman recently pointed out, the Lords are often the mechanism for closing the gap between government rhetoric and policy; in 2021, the government's post-Brexit financial services bill made no mention of the climate emergency until the Lords introduced amendments on green financing.

Labour needs to take stock and realise what it's got; slimming down the bloated upper house and reforming how members are appointed may be critical. However, finding a place for these indispensable individuals in any new system will be vital to its success. Simply doing away with that expertise may not work as a wedge and it could leave a Labour government incapable of delivering on what people really want.

The Rebuttal: Hancock-up? Or a ‘celebrity’ masterclass?

Issue: Can a disgraced MP rejuvenate their career by ignoring their job and hanging out in a jungle with Z-list ‘celebrities’?

Context

Matt Hancock – a.k.a. the Health Secretary during Covid-19 before resigning in disgrace for breaching social-distancing rules by snogging his tax-payer funded aide (who was notably not his wife) – launched an attempted career comeback this month by appearing on ‘I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here’. Hancock’s decision prompted the removal of the Tory whip, casting further doubts on his already-dim political prospects. Promising to use the attention to raise awareness of dyslexia, Hancock ended up finishing third in the contest, losing out to the eventual winner, footballer Jill Scott. Batting away accusations he was in it just for the PR, Hancock said he was just trying to ‘be himself’ (read: hire me, please, anyone).

Hancock’s ‘line to take’

“I wanted to show what I’m like as a person.”

Line review

In one sense, Hancock’s line does exactly what it says on the tin. Hancock did, indeed, show what he was like as a person: slightly dorky, mostly earnest, and eager to be liked. And you know what? You can’t help but…like him. And likeability is a marketable skill these days, especially in TV-land.

As with any line, the intended audience is the only one who’s opinion truly matters. Hancock’s entire time in the jungle was marked by snide commentary from the Westminster lobby, most of whom ended up watching every second in spite of themselves. But they aren’t (and were never) the intended audience. Hancock was auditioning to be a public personality, not the champion of dyslexia (total jungle mentions: 3), and so his sole audience was the cohort of people who commission television programmes.

Hancock knows his political future is toast – for his past transgressions, if not for Liz Truss’ subsequent cannonball through the floor of Tory electability – and so appearing on a schlocky reality TV series is as good an outlet for an ambitious personality as any. As a former Culture Secretary, Hancock also knows the UK remains a market leader for schlocky television and therefore sees it as a vein to be tapped, something he’s already done to the tune of £400k for his appearance in the jungle.

In summary, laugh all you want, but we reckon you’ll be getting a lot more Hancock in your life over the coming months and years.

Line rating

Blinder ✅

Strong

Does the job

Problematic

Piss poor