Competence or chaos — that’s how the Conservative Party tried to frame the choice facing voters at last year’s General Election. Competence, under David Cameron and his Long Term Economic Plan, or chaos under a weak Ed Miliband held hostage by the SNP and who-knows-who-else.

It seems to have worked. After all, Mr Cameron’s still at Number 10.

In fact, it worked such a treat for the Conservatives that they’re already deploying the tactic for the 2020 election, and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is duly obliging them. How else to explain the chaotic reshuffle, the unforced errors, and the civil wars that have erupted not only between the different wings of the party but also between the different wings of the Leader’s office? Labour is hopelessly divided on a number of key areas, most notably defence and trident. The Conservatives, however, have only one major rift — Europe (more on that in a moment). Cameron hopes to plaster over the party’s internal disagreements on this after the referendum so the Conservatives can continue to hold, rightly or wrongly, the mantle of competence come 2020. At last year’s party conference, the themes were security, stability and opportunity. Expect them to highlight the first two in particular over the next few years in comparison to Labour.

Taken outside of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester last October. Notice the themes of security and stability.

A similar tactic is now being used by the Britain Stronger In Europe (BSE) organisation which is campaigning to remain in the European Union in the upcoming in/out referendum. Their strategy thus far has been to present staying in the EU as the safe option. Just look at what they’ve written on their website:

• “Leaving Europe would threaten our safety.”
• “If we do leave, we will be cut off from automatic access to the economic benefits that the EU brings – hitting businesses, risking jobs and threatening families’ financial security.”
• “To vote leave is to take a leap into the unknown, risking a weaker economy…”

Notice the use of the words such as ‘safety’, ‘threat’, ‘security’, and ‘risk’.

The chaotic state on the Leave front is playing into their hands. Take, for instance, the bickering and feuding between the two rival groups, Leave.EU and Vote Leave, and the recent botched coup in the latter organisation. BSE has remorselessly played up divisions and highlighted the contradictory visions of those involved in the Out campaigns as to what a post-EU Britain will look like. Why, voters might ask, should we leave the EU when those campaigning for it can’t even paint a coherent picture of life outside it?

The Leave campaigns, when they’re not busy fighting each other, are also trying to depict leaving the EU as the safe option. Leave.EU states on its website that “Leaving the EU is a less risky option than staying in”, making its case by highlighting the dangers of further integration and the ‘disaster’ of the Euro. There have also been some attempts to draw on fears of migration and the refugee crisis. Moreover, the competence of an organisation that accidentally named itself after mad cow disease must be questioned. However, the Out side is losing this battle for now, and will continue to do so unless internal disputes are resolved.

Away from all of this, George Ferguson appears to have been watching closely. In early November, Bristol 1st (the ‘party of one’ campaigning for his re-election as Mayor) sent its first leaflet of election season to the people of Bristol.

“Bristol is going places,” it remarked, bringing our attention to all sorts of achievements in recent years.

An excerpt from George Ferguson’s leaflet.

But what’s that – all of this goodness and prosperity is at risk? The leaflet then warns us:

We are warned not to return to the ‘political chaos of the past’ in George Ferguson’s leaflet.

George Ferguson, Mayor of Bristol

There we go again with the chaos. Never mind that we wouldn’t actually return to this scenario in the case of a Ferguson defeat due to the adoption of a directly-elected mayor. The point of this leaflet is to convince the electorate that Ferguson, as an independent, is able to rise above party lines and govern competently, whereas his rivals in the various political parties would drive local government into chaos. As Ferguson puts it later on in the leaflet: “After years of destructive party politics, we’re now getting things done.”

Does the language sound familiar? Look what the Conservatives were saying last year prior to the election:

The chaos of unfunded spending promises, higher taxes and more borrowing offered by Labour is a risk to economic recovery. Competence or chaos. That is the choice for the British people at the election.

The other guy will bring chaos, warn Cameron and Ferguson. The other guy will risk it all, they cry.

But will the Chaos Formula work for the Man in the Red Trousers?

Perhaps. But consider that in the 2012 referendum on whether or not to have a mayor, less than a quarter of the electorate in Bristol even bothered to vote on the matter. This suggests that people probably weren’t as concerned about the ‘chaos’ of life before George as Ferguson’s team might now hope. The stakes are undeniably low compared to the General Election and the EU referendum. It looks as if the election will be won or lost on the issues, not on the questions of competence and security. Ferguson might be wasting his time fighting the wrong battle.