Moral Principles vs. Strategic Campaigning: Lessons from Recent Left-Wing Electoral Losses

The following article contains precisely zero surprises if you’ve followed politics for more than five minutes, but, hey, it’ll be cathartic. Kind of

When Ideals Meet Reality

The political world right now is a bit like a sitcom that's overstayed its welcome—endless, repetitive plotlines and characters you’d rather weren’t renewed for another season. From illegal wars to environmental crisis, amidst all this chaos, elections happened. But, let’s face it, if you were rooting for the left-wing protagonists, you probably felt like a hopeful extra watching from the background as they fumbled their lines at every turn.

Today, we’re going to dive into how left-wing political parties like those led by Jeremy Corbyn (UK), Bill Shorten (Australia), and Hillary Clinton (U.S.) managed to, in a fit of moral fervour, completely misread the room and ultimately hand the remote control to their right-wing counterparts. Spoiler alert: it’s not a happy ending. But we’ll try to laugh or crack a smile through the tears.

The UK: Jeremy Corbyn vs. Boris Johnson (2019)

The Context: A Brexit Fever Dream

Jeremy Corbyn—Labour leader and wearer of jumpers that scream "kindly geography teacher", had a dream. And, like many good dreams, it involved social justice, equality, and a slightly confused stance on Brexit. His 2019 campaign was, in the words of The Guardian, a solid exercise in vague positioning. Somewhere between "Let’s sort out Brexit" and "Why don’t we just talk about something else instead?".

While Corbyn was touting moral high ground policies, Boris Johnson was running around like a meme version of Churchill, shouting "Get Brexit Done!" like it was a football chant. And guess what? It worked. Boris knew exactly what his audience wanted, a simple, shouty slogan, preferably accompanied by a pint of lager. Corbyn, on the other hand, came off as a politician who wanted to talk about feelings and facts, something the British public had little patience for during the madness of Brexit.

Oh, and let’s not forget the anti-Semitism scandals that dogged Labour’s campaign. Most of it was BS, but according to The Independent, the party’s internal bickering over the issue was so loud, voters could barely hear anything else. While Johnson was happily waving a Union Jack, Labour was imploding like a Brexit-themed piñata at a Leave party.

The Outcome: "One of the Worst Defeats in History"

Labour lost. Spectacularly. It was the kind of loss that made political historians giddy with excitement and Labour voters retreat into their kitchens to make the strongest cup of tea humanly possible. Corbyn’s well-meaning moral principles were crushed by Boris’s blunt, populist strategy. It wasn’t just a defeat; it was a lesson in how not to run an election.

---

Australia: Bill Shorten vs. Scott Morrison (2019)

The Context: Tax Policy and Climate Change—What Could Go Wrong?

Now over to the large land Down Under, where Bill Shorten, the then leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), was trying to navigate one of the most confusing political landscapes since, well, the last one. Shorten had all the moral talking points lined up, strong climate policies, workers’ rights, healthcare reforms. But then, in what can only be described as a bizarre self-sabotage move, he decided to propose tax reforms that, in the words of the Liberal Party, amounted to a "death tax" (no one knows what that actually means, but it sounds terrible, doesn’t it?).

The opposition’s Scott Morrison, on the other hand, smirked his way through the election, running a campaign that screamed "don’t change a thing, everything is fine" while much of the country was literally on fire. As ABC News highlighted, Morrison’s focus on economic management, alongside a conspicuous lack of charisma, somehow resonated with voters, leaving Shorten in the dust.

The Outcome: Against All Odds—A Loss

Just like Labour in the UK, Shorten’s ALP was widely predicted to win. But alas, polls apparently don’t count for much these days. Morrison’s victory stunned the world (and Shorten), proving that even in the face of compelling moral arguments, strategy wins out when voters are more concerned with their wallets than the environment. As The Conversation eloquently put it, Morrison kept it boring, and boring worked.

---

The US: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump (2016)

The Context: The Election That Broke Reality

Oh, America. Where to begin? In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign looked like a well-oiled machine. And that was its first problem. Clinton’s team relied so heavily on data and analytics that they forgot actual voters existed. In swing states, she barely campaigned, assuming her digital strategy would do the heavy lifting. It didn’t. Surprise!

Meanwhile, Trump was running around the country hosting rallies like a WWE villain. His strategy? Say whatever comes to mind, contradict yourself tomorrow, and, somehow, tap into the angry undercurrent of working-class voters. Hillary’s moral high ground—built on gender equality, healthcare, and competent governance—looked noble. Too noble. As Politico noted, her campaign left voters feeling patronised, while Trump was simply giving them the circus they didn’t even know they wanted.

The Outcome: Trump Wins. The World Blinks in Shock.

We all know how this ended. Despite Clinton’s clear moral superiority, Trump’s chaotic but effective strategic campaigning won the day. The Democrats were left staring into their collective cappuccinos, wondering what just happened, while the rest of America frantically Googled "How to emigrate to Canada."

---

The Problem with Moral High Grounds

So, what went wrong in each of these cases? In short: moral high grounds are only effective if the ground beneath them isn’t crumbling. Each of these left-wing campaigns overestimated the electorate’s willingness to vote based on values alone. In contrast, their right-wing opponents were willing to play dirty, simplify their messaging, and, most importantly, strategise like their lives depended on it.

Social media doesn’t help either. While it’s easier than ever to organise physical protests (just create a Facebook / Twitter (X) event and boom, there’s a thousand people outside with placards), they seem to have lost their impact. Governments, both local and international, are now masters of brushing them off, knowing full well that we’ll soon be back to scrolling through mind-numbing reality TV. (Thank you, Kardashians, for distracting us while the world burns.)

**amplified controversy and misinformation**

And let’s not forget censorship, especially in the form of shadow-banning on social media. According to multiple reports, from credible outlets like The Intercept, dissenting voices, particularly those on the left, have often found themselves mysteriously less visible online. Coincidence? You decide.

The Way Forward: Because We Can’t Just Give Up, Can We?

If left-wing parties want to stop losing, they need to combine their moral compass with strategic nous. This means actually listening to voters, focusing on bread-and-butter issues (even if they’re not as sexy as climate change), and crafting messages that resonate on an emotional level.

It also means not getting distracted by the noise. Reality TV might be fun, but the world’s problems aren’t going anywhere. We need to be more aware of how information is fed to us, and how we engage with it. The key to creating positive change isn’t just yelling louder, but understanding the game we’re playing—and, most importantly, playing it better.

Everything is free, but Coffee fuels me.

References:

1. BBC News. (2019). "Election 2019: How did the Labour party lose so badly?" https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50779739

2. The Guardian. (2019). "Election 2019 results: Labour loss explained." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/13/why-did-labour-lose-election-2019

3. The Independent. (2019). "Labour party internal fighting: The impact on the election." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-divisions-2019-election-loss-boris-johnson-corbyn-a9250691.html

4. ABC News. (2019). "Election 2019: Bill Shorten concedes Labor defeat." https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-18/bill-shorten-concedes-defeat-2019-federal-election/11128140

5. The Conversation. (2019). "What the Labor Party can learn from its defeat." https://theconversation.com/what-the-labor-party-can-learn-from-its-defeat-117467

6. The Sydney Morning Herald. (2019). "What Labor can learn from the 2019 election defeat." https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-labor-can-learn-from-the-2019-election-defeat-20190519-p51ozf.html

7. Politico. (2016). "Hillary Clinton's campaign decision-making." https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-loss-analysis-231434

8. The New York Times. (2016). "Hillary Clinton's campaign analysis." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-president.html

9. CNN. (2016). "The impact of Democratic infighting on the Clinton campaign." https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-trump-2016-election