After Manchester, Brits to keep calm and carry on at ballot box

Despite its timing and brute emotional force, the devastating Manchester suicide-bomb attack is unlikely to have a large impact on the British election next month. Fear of terrorism will not necessarily translate to hardline choices at the ballot box.

History and research suggest the Brits, tragically familiar with terror attacks, will maintain their traditional stiff upper lip. The country is no stranger to political violence. A bitter conflict in Northern Ireland led to decades of paramilitary violence and a spate of terrorist attacks — both in Northern Ireland and in England. During those bloody times, voters were forced to reckon with violence and journalists established a mostly level-headed approach to covering terror.

Under former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the media was implored to resist giving perpetrators the “oxygen of publicity.” For decades, coverage of political violence was informed by the maxim that the less you publicize the deeds of terrorists, the less power they will have to actually “terrorize” the public. At one point, political parties with links to terrorist groups were banned from speaking on broadcasts in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland. Broadcasters in Northern Ireland got around the ban by dubbing speeches and interviews with an actor’s voice.

Members of the public pause to look at floral tributes and messages in St. Anns Square on May 24, 2017 in Manchester, England | Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images

But as the world and media changed over the years, so did Britain’s approach to covering terror. When, in 2005, four British-born jihadists set off explosives on the London transport system, killing 52 people, the staid BBC struggled to keep audience attention. It had suggested the cause of the explosions was a possible electrical fault even as other broadcasters, such as Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News, live-streamed the event as a terrorist attack.

But while newspaper tabloid coverage was extremist or fear-mongering, print media lacks the penetration and visual immediacy of national broadcasters. And it was not the tabloids, but broadcasters like the BBC, that led a conversation about why British natives would attack their fellow citizens and that set the tone.

The public mood followed suit. A research project on how fear of terror influences voter intentions was gathering data when the bombings occurred. It found that there was no noticeable shift in the way that dozens of British citizens — even those who lived in London — talked about terrorism, security and the vote after the bombings.

When the U.S. and Russia experienced terrorist attacks, voters in both countries were adamant about the need for safety and security. By contrast, the British response reflected the idea that it was the job of citizens to resist being swayed or influenced by terrorist acts. Voters had little patience for politicians who attempted to use the violence as political fodder.

The decision by Britain’s political parties to suspend campaign activities in the wake of the tragedy in Manchester speaks to a sense of decorum and demonstrates the strength of the party system. Appealing to populist sentiment — or attempting to win party support on the back of a tragedy — is tricky anywhere, but in the U.K. it would be political suicide for a mainstream politician.

In the U.S., parties are essentially brands, and candidates are reliant on their local electorates for support. In Britain, it’s the parties that select who stands in various constituencies, giving them tight control over who is elected. As a result, major parties remain top-down, disciplined organizations in which personality and soundbites count for far less than party loyalty.

That is not to say that terrorist attacks do not shape political preferences over the long term or give an edge to more right-wing politicians. Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party had consolidated a lead in the election just before the attack, with 48 percent of those who had made up their minds picking the Conservatives, with only 33 percent planning to vote for Labour. And that is unlikely to change. The bombing is unlikely to turn the tide for Labour, which is seen as weak on security.

Smaller parties, such as the anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party, may eventually attempt to translate some fear into votes. But trying to make immediate political capital out of the Manchester tragedy is a bad strategy for the mainstream British political parties. With the country on high alert and many in fear of further attacks, Britain can be counted on to keep a safe distance between terrorists and the ballot box.

Sarah Oates is professor and senior scholar at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland and the lead author of “Terrorism, Elections, and Democracy: Political Campaigns in the United States, Great Britain, and Russia.”