Animals & Nature0 min ago
Groundswell Of Support For Cameron And The Tories
Is it me (it probably is) or does there appear to be a groundswell of support for Cameron and the Tories the closer we come to election day?
Are the 'undecideds' growing to realise that the economy, which is still wounded but getting better, in the hands of Labour is a terrifying prospect?
The papers this morning have all pretty much said Cameron won last night, even the Guardian has grudgingly said he did a good job, but that may have been because Milliband was savaged, particularly by the lady who asked the first question.
So, am I imagining it?
Are the 'undecideds' growing to realise that the economy, which is still wounded but getting better, in the hands of Labour is a terrifying prospect?
The papers this morning have all pretty much said Cameron won last night, even the Guardian has grudgingly said he did a good job, but that may have been because Milliband was savaged, particularly by the lady who asked the first question.
So, am I imagining it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't detect a ground swell, but the Tories seem to be edging it. UKIP were expected to take a lot of Tory votes (not seats), but they seem to have been completely marginalised. After Farage's poor showing in the televised debate, UKIP have faulted and the Tories have been the beneficaries of that. It looks like the Tories will win the most seats, but be well short of a majority.
Not much credence should be made from newspapers. They nearly all have a Tory bias and go into overdrive at election time.
Not much credence should be made from newspapers. They nearly all have a Tory bias and go into overdrive at election time.
I wouldn't say you're imagining it but the lead the Tories have over Labour at the moment at least is mainly due to predicted lost Labour votes and seats in Scotland. Give them back to Labour and the vote shares of both parties are essentially still about the same but Labour picks up around 30 extra seats, which could well be enough to form a majority (or at least a Lib-Lab coalition over a Lib-Con one).
At this stage, I don't see Labour recovering any votes or seats in Scotland beyond maybe a handful, ten at most. ON the other hand there are a lot of close races in English constituencies, many of which feature the Conservatives, so small-ish swings in support to the Tories could gift them another 20-odd seats or more. There is a tendency in recent elections for the conservative vote to pick up just a bit in the last few days of polling as "shy Tories" finally come out of hiding. Goodness only know why you should feel shy to be a Conservative supporter, but there you have it. I expect the Conservatives to gain a little compared to the polling position. If it's enough for a majority, who knows. But if the Conservatives do gain a majority while at the same time all (or most) of the Scottish MPs are SNP, and certainly none are Conservative, then don't expect the results to be pretty for the UK.
At this stage, I don't see Labour recovering any votes or seats in Scotland beyond maybe a handful, ten at most. ON the other hand there are a lot of close races in English constituencies, many of which feature the Conservatives, so small-ish swings in support to the Tories could gift them another 20-odd seats or more. There is a tendency in recent elections for the conservative vote to pick up just a bit in the last few days of polling as "shy Tories" finally come out of hiding. Goodness only know why you should feel shy to be a Conservative supporter, but there you have it. I expect the Conservatives to gain a little compared to the polling position. If it's enough for a majority, who knows. But if the Conservatives do gain a majority while at the same time all (or most) of the Scottish MPs are SNP, and certainly none are Conservative, then don't expect the results to be pretty for the UK.
I think these days poll companies are aware of the phenomenon although it remains tricky to predict of course. The key factors in determining its importance will now include the UKIP element, sucking support away from the Tories mainly before you throw in extra votes from the shy Tories. But in many cases I expect shy toriy voters to make the difference between a large Conservative majority and a massive one in certain constituencies. Hard to imagine it turning into 40 extra seats at this stage. But we'll see, of course.
The main puzzle is why anyone should be shy to be a Tory, but...
The main puzzle is why anyone should be shy to be a Tory, but...
I think elections are as much about whom the electorate don't want, as whom they do want.
Right now, the prospect of Labour, effectively controlled by the SNP, is pushing a lot of undecided voters in the Tories' direction, and this was probably assisted by Cameron's strong performance on television last night.
Right now, the prospect of Labour, effectively controlled by the SNP, is pushing a lot of undecided voters in the Tories' direction, and this was probably assisted by Cameron's strong performance on television last night.
Jim, //The main puzzle is why anyone should be shy to be a Tory//
This could explain it.
//For various reasons, people don’t like to admit that they are intending to vote Conservative at the next election, particularly to a stranger on the phone. This, I imagine, is related to the vitriol reserved by those on the left for those who have right wing leanings. You won’t tell a stranger that you intend to vote Conservative as you don’t know how they might react. If you don’t know what I mean by this, compare sitting down at a table of a Die-hard Labour supporters and announce you are a Conservative-voter with sitting down at a table of Conservative supporters and announcing you intend to vote Labour. The latter will most probably result in amused indulgence. The former won’t.//
http://
This could explain it.
//For various reasons, people don’t like to admit that they are intending to vote Conservative at the next election, particularly to a stranger on the phone. This, I imagine, is related to the vitriol reserved by those on the left for those who have right wing leanings. You won’t tell a stranger that you intend to vote Conservative as you don’t know how they might react. If you don’t know what I mean by this, compare sitting down at a table of a Die-hard Labour supporters and announce you are a Conservative-voter with sitting down at a table of Conservative supporters and announcing you intend to vote Labour. The latter will most probably result in amused indulgence. The former won’t.//
http://
Quite frankly anybody who has not decided how to vote by now does not deserve a vote.
The problem is the electorate never seems to learn. Time after time they are swayed by politicians' ridiculous promises to dole out other people's money and by pledges to do things if elected (or re-elected) that they've never managed to do in the past when they had the opportunity. Then they react to what are nothing short of talent shows. When the various leaders appear on TV the papers are full the next day with reports of who "won" the TV debate, who performed well and who wore the best tie.
Voters should concentrate on what they have evidence of (i.e. past performance) and not react to pie-in-the-sky promises of jam tomorrow and slick PR performances.
The problem is the electorate never seems to learn. Time after time they are swayed by politicians' ridiculous promises to dole out other people's money and by pledges to do things if elected (or re-elected) that they've never managed to do in the past when they had the opportunity. Then they react to what are nothing short of talent shows. When the various leaders appear on TV the papers are full the next day with reports of who "won" the TV debate, who performed well and who wore the best tie.
Voters should concentrate on what they have evidence of (i.e. past performance) and not react to pie-in-the-sky promises of jam tomorrow and slick PR performances.
What is the cut-off point for "past performance"? It would seem ludicrous to vote against the Tories based on their ridiculously poor performance on foreign policy under Anthony Eden, for example.
Party leaderships change, policy positions change, the tricky balance over possible coalition deals is always changing. And besides which NJ, as you are constantly trying to remind people elsewhere, this vote is supposedly for MPs to represent a constituency, and hang party politics. Many such candidates don't have a "past performance" on which to judge, so why not take as much time as possible to compare, say, Ian Murray against Neil Hay?
Party leaderships change, policy positions change, the tricky balance over possible coalition deals is always changing. And besides which NJ, as you are constantly trying to remind people elsewhere, this vote is supposedly for MPs to represent a constituency, and hang party politics. Many such candidates don't have a "past performance" on which to judge, so why not take as much time as possible to compare, say, Ian Murray against Neil Hay?
Yes it’s quite true that people should vote for an MP and not a party, jim. But the unfortunate truth is that they do not. Being pragmatic my earlier remarks bore that in mind. I doubt anybody in Edinburgh South is considering the comparative prospects of having Ian Murray or Neil Hay as their MP. And even if they are they needn’t bother as these two gentlemen will be hidebound by the manifestos of the Labour Party and the SNP respectively. These proposals are well known and are unlikely to change significantly in the next seven days.
My overall point is that voters, who with few exceptions vote for a party and not for an individual, would be better off examining how their chosen party has performed in government, not how it now promises it will in the next five years. The exception of course is for the 25% or so of those that are predicted to vote for a party that has never held office. They obviously have their reasons which would, I imagine, be well framed by now.
The “election campaign” is a nonsense. Apart from the publication of their manifestos parties need do nothing to persuade voters to vote for them because almost all of what they say can be taken with a wheelbarrow full of salt. If standing on a street corner promising the earth (which in reality will translate into half a hundredweight of topsoil) sways a few voters then I would suggest those people are far too gullible.
The added dimension of possible Coalition combinations is largely irrelevant. Nobody knows what deals will be done behind closed doors by the party leaders to secure power. As has been seen over the last five years, principles (as well as manifesto promises and pledges made on “Question Time”) quickly go out of the window when the keys to No 10 are at stake. To suggest that people might vote (solely as an example) LibDem because they would prefer to see a Coalition between them and the Tories is simply nonsense.
In my lengthy experience of voting I have never been swayed by promises made in the run up to an election. I make my decision on what politicians have actually done not what they say they will do. This is difficult enough but it’s a tad more reliable than banking on promises because, quite simply, none of them can be trusted.
Nonetheless I wish the best of luck to those voters who have been swayed by the “Strictly Come Polling” (or perhaps the “X Factor” would be more appropriate) episodes that have been on the telly recently. But if they’ve relied on what they’ve seen then to provide them with a better future, they may be disappointed.
My overall point is that voters, who with few exceptions vote for a party and not for an individual, would be better off examining how their chosen party has performed in government, not how it now promises it will in the next five years. The exception of course is for the 25% or so of those that are predicted to vote for a party that has never held office. They obviously have their reasons which would, I imagine, be well framed by now.
The “election campaign” is a nonsense. Apart from the publication of their manifestos parties need do nothing to persuade voters to vote for them because almost all of what they say can be taken with a wheelbarrow full of salt. If standing on a street corner promising the earth (which in reality will translate into half a hundredweight of topsoil) sways a few voters then I would suggest those people are far too gullible.
The added dimension of possible Coalition combinations is largely irrelevant. Nobody knows what deals will be done behind closed doors by the party leaders to secure power. As has been seen over the last five years, principles (as well as manifesto promises and pledges made on “Question Time”) quickly go out of the window when the keys to No 10 are at stake. To suggest that people might vote (solely as an example) LibDem because they would prefer to see a Coalition between them and the Tories is simply nonsense.
In my lengthy experience of voting I have never been swayed by promises made in the run up to an election. I make my decision on what politicians have actually done not what they say they will do. This is difficult enough but it’s a tad more reliable than banking on promises because, quite simply, none of them can be trusted.
Nonetheless I wish the best of luck to those voters who have been swayed by the “Strictly Come Polling” (or perhaps the “X Factor” would be more appropriate) episodes that have been on the telly recently. But if they’ve relied on what they’ve seen then to provide them with a better future, they may be disappointed.
All the same, there has to be a cut-off for past performance, and it's unreasonable too to criticise people for wanting to vote for a party with no realistic hopes of winning. Perhaps it's because they judge the past performances of both/ all of the main parties to be less than ideal?
I'd suggest a sensible cut-off for judging the past performance of the Conservatives is the last five years. They have not done nearly as much as was promised, and have failed or are still failing on a number of key policies -- most notably, dealing with the deficit. For Labour, anything prior to 1997 is unfair to judge them on. But I'd happily judge Labour on their record in the last five years or so of their last government, particularly as several of the senior members of the party now are the same as they were then. I remain somewhat bemused by the presence of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the head of the Labour party, given their roles as key advisers to Gordon Brown when he was chancellor.
But I disagree that aspirations and promises are entirely unimportant. Both of the main parties have a general philosophy that shapes, and so is revealed by, the aspirations they put out and the promises they make. They might not -- probably won't -- keep these specific promises, but they still carry some meaning I feel.
I'd suggest a sensible cut-off for judging the past performance of the Conservatives is the last five years. They have not done nearly as much as was promised, and have failed or are still failing on a number of key policies -- most notably, dealing with the deficit. For Labour, anything prior to 1997 is unfair to judge them on. But I'd happily judge Labour on their record in the last five years or so of their last government, particularly as several of the senior members of the party now are the same as they were then. I remain somewhat bemused by the presence of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the head of the Labour party, given their roles as key advisers to Gordon Brown when he was chancellor.
But I disagree that aspirations and promises are entirely unimportant. Both of the main parties have a general philosophy that shapes, and so is revealed by, the aspirations they put out and the promises they make. They might not -- probably won't -- keep these specific promises, but they still carry some meaning I feel.
Quite so, jim. I admire people who vote for the lesser parties or indeed Independent candidates. They may feel the main parties offer them nothing or they may feel an attraction to an individual candidate for some reason. It is unfortunate that those smaller parties will not get the representation their votes perhaps warrant but, as a supporter of FPTP I cannot have it both ways.
The notion of where to “cut off” past performance is interesting. In most people’s view recent past performance carries more weight than that further back. This is not always the case, however. Nobody can fail to notice the vitriol poured on the Tories for some aspects of “Thatcherism” which, although mainly thirty years old, still rankles with some people (even some not yet born at the time!). This will probably never be overcome in some no matter what the Tories have done more recently.
The notion of where to “cut off” past performance is interesting. In most people’s view recent past performance carries more weight than that further back. This is not always the case, however. Nobody can fail to notice the vitriol poured on the Tories for some aspects of “Thatcherism” which, although mainly thirty years old, still rankles with some people (even some not yet born at the time!). This will probably never be overcome in some no matter what the Tories have done more recently.
"The economy in the hands of Labour is a terrifying prospect."
Really?
When Jim Callaghan entered the Chancellor's office in 1964, Labour having just won the election, he too found a note on his desk. It was written by the outgoing Tory Chancellor, Reginald Maudling, and read,
"Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."
So the near-identical note left by Liam Byrne in 2010 that Tories today never tire of drawing attention to was clearly just paying the Tories back "in their own coin". In its favour is the fact that the Labour version was somewhat more polite!
Obviously, neither the woman who supposedly "shredded" Ed Miliband by asking him about Byrne's note on TV yesterday and the audience who cheered her - perhaps by virtue of being too young to remember Maudling's "joke" - need to be reminded about the truth of the matter; namely, that if Labour was economically incompetent in the past, the Tories have been no different and used exactly the same response.
Really?
When Jim Callaghan entered the Chancellor's office in 1964, Labour having just won the election, he too found a note on his desk. It was written by the outgoing Tory Chancellor, Reginald Maudling, and read,
"Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."
So the near-identical note left by Liam Byrne in 2010 that Tories today never tire of drawing attention to was clearly just paying the Tories back "in their own coin". In its favour is the fact that the Labour version was somewhat more polite!
Obviously, neither the woman who supposedly "shredded" Ed Miliband by asking him about Byrne's note on TV yesterday and the audience who cheered her - perhaps by virtue of being too young to remember Maudling's "joke" - need to be reminded about the truth of the matter; namely, that if Labour was economically incompetent in the past, the Tories have been no different and used exactly the same response.
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education1 min ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.