‘Catastrophic’ campaign will be studied for years to come

This election will be studied for years to come by political analysts and journalists, says a senior lecturer at Kent University in Canterbury.

Laura Sudulich, senior lecturer in politics in the School of Politics and International Relations, says the word “catastrophic” is being used to describe the Tory campaign and will become a “Pavlovian association” with the 2017 battle.

Students at the university are being credited with having a significant influence on the astonishing win by Rosie Duffield, defeating the Tory MP of 30 years Sir Julian Brazier, but Dr Sudulich believes the Labour performance was rooted in Jeremy Corbyn’s hugely effective ground operation.

She said the outcome demonstrated the campaigns were “not rhetorical exercises”.

“What was expected to be the plainest campaign in recent British history unfolded as one of the most engaging forms of voters ‘mobilisation’,” she said.

“Theresa May called the election for June 8 in search for a mandate leading to stability and consensus. She enjoyed the ‘first mover’ advantage, taking other parties by surprise, and relied on what looked at the time like a rock solid majority in the polls.”

Despite the huge difference in donations to the two major parties, the Tories wasted their considerable financial advantage, Dr Sudulich says.

“It did not capitalize on any on those advantages. On the contrary, the word ‘catastrophic’ has been used multiple times and it is likely to become a Pavlovian association to the Tory campaign 2017.

“Campaigns deliver messages and the message delivered by the Prime Minister was unconvincing.

“On the contrary, Jeremy Corbyn demonstrated not only to be a good orator to his own crowds, but also a convincing debater at away games.”