And Another Thing…

Tom, this is uncharacteristically negative of you, and also very poor analysis.

You make some sweeping comments such as “The electorate, in its wisdom, neither like nor trust him. They just don’t think there is any substance beneath the image.”

Actually, the opinion polls have been pretty consistent over the past 18 months and more in having DC lead the polling for most trusted and most liked Party leader.

On the ‘forced choice’ question of who people would most rather see lead the country, DC and the Conservative beat Labour hands down – even among Liberal Democrat voters, which has surprised some.

And Camron often beats Brown in the polling question on style versus substance, contrary to your assertion.

No, there are no 20 – 30 point leads, but then those of us who follow the excellent and non-partisan polling analyss sites such as politicalbetting.com and ukpollingreport.co.uk know that the huge polling leaads Blair apparently had in 1997 cannot be compared to todays polls due to changes in methodology.

It is simply not true to suggest that it is normal for opposition leaders going into elections to require a wave of hysterical popular appeal, and to publicly ‘seal the deal’ with swing voters well ahead of time. It is not. 1997 was a very unusual election, but despite the hype fewer people voted for Mr Blair in 1997 than voted for Mr Major in 1992.

The fact is, David Cameron outpolls Gordon Brown on almost every question of leadership, and despite the surge in smaller parties not seen at previous elections, is still holding the Tories at a very steady and rock solid 40% through think and through thin.

So sorry, but a disappointing article from you today.

You may find this interesting:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/09/20/are-the-tories-too-reliant-on-cameron/

(apologies for all the typos!)

After 2012, Boris Johnson would be a major contender especially if Cameron manages a minority and loses due to unpopular cuts and vat tax rises.

We may be in for a decade or so of one term goverments see-sawing from left to right with Lib Dems and Scots Nats supporting minority agendas

economically incompetent

Dangerous ground for the no boom and bust party you’re a member of.

The electorate, in its wisdom, neither like nor trust him

Tom, Tom, you’re confused; J. Gordon Brown isn’t written David Cameron, need to check your spelling.

Apart from that the rest is funny in a sad way.

“some really serious doubts persist about whether their man has the qualities the public want to see in a Prime Minister.”

…and of course there are teeming hordes of supporters for Gordon Brown and a 5 year extension of his 2 year political train crash??

Dear Tom. Not a bad effort as bravado and economy with the truth goes, and it’s only taken the Bunker 8 hrs to work out how to brief it’s bloggers. Today , Tom, your columnists, Rentoul, Flux and La Toynbee, have been tearing lumps out of each other in support of their favoured NuLab factions for the internicene warfare due to start immediately after the Election.
I must disagree with your statement,”Even in its darkest days, Labour was never short of leadership material at the top of the party”
In 1979, Wilson had fled the Bridge leaving the sinking ship. The untimely death of John Smith left Labour with no real leader until the rise of the opportunistic flim-flam artist Tony Blair. Like Wilson, Blair took to the lifebelts before the term was up, after winning an election on the strength of promising to stsy for a full term – a promise which it is now clear that he had no intention of keeping. Gordon Brown not only lacked the courage to confirm his PM-ship in a winnable GE in 1997,(He is so frit that he sneaked into Lisbon days after the signinng ceremony to do the deed that 2/3 of the electorate were against) but had used the spin machine built by him to destroy any obvious potential rival well beforehand. Brown is a plotter and conniver whose whole governmental strategy since his Boom Busted has been governed by his personal dislike of Cameron.
Cameron was elected as Leader by the Conservative Party in open competition. The Party membership chose him in open election, not in a casual deal over a meal in a cafe. Many don’t agree with him in certain policy areas (me included) but he has got control of a disparate group of Party Members and has to a large extent decontaminated the Brand. Labour are now where the Conservatives were in 1997 – unelectable except in their heartlands and not even sure of these, the Brand badly needing decontamination. The faithful plus those who no longer are prepared to give Labour the benefit of the doubt will be enough to give Cameron a working majority. For many people, the die will be cast by the feeling across the country that the UK can no longer afford a Labour Government. I respect you, Tom . and hope you escape the carnage.

“Even in its darkest days, Labour was never short of leadership material at the top of the party. The same is still true.”
———–

As McEnroe would say, you cannot be serious? Michael Foot; Neil Kinnock? Leadership material. You have got to be kidding. John Smith – maybe; if you were a Scottish socialist who believed in redistribution of wealth. Blair – yes; Leadership material but then he went and blew it because for the first term he was more concerned with being liked than in actually delivering anything. But then it all went to his head and he turned into an untrustworthy, egotistical charlatan.

Brown – leadership material? I think the last 2+ years have conclusively proven than Brown is no leader. The only thing ‘joined up’ about his Government are the excuses trotted out for failure. Repeating the same tired old mantras about his self-perceived economic wisdom doesn’t make him a leader – it makes him delusional.

You’ve obviously not read Polly Toynbee today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/01/death-wish-brown-crash-labour

Cameron outscores Brown at every level, including Leadership.

I think this is true – the electorate isn’t yet sold on Mr Cameron, but then it isn’t sold on Mr Brown either, and so if the status-quo persists than I suspect, barring a ‘game-changer’, Labour will still lose the election.

Incidentally, your opening comment (‘the electorate, in its wisdom’), points toward what I tend to think has been one of the biggest fails of the left in recent years – an inability to genuinely engage with the electorate, a general misanthropy that is unable to recognise or accept the wisdom of ordinary folk, a statist authoritarianism always trumps ‘society’.

I blogged on this theme today (I hope you don’t mind me posting the link, Tom) -http://wp.me/pJiP0-2z

David Cameron might not be loved in the way that Blair or Thatcher were (and perhaps Boris Johnson is today), but to say he isn’t even liked is unfair. It is poor analysis. He simply wouldn’t be someone you’d want to go for a pint with.

Yes, a lot of the work Cameron has done has been about detoxifying a brand rather than overhauling it’s core values. But that’s what is needed. The country is essentially conservative and centre-right. Labour lost in ’92 even though they were seen as the ‘nice’ choice because people didn’t trust them not to be socialist loons. Tony Blair won three elections in a row because he was able to show that Labour were both ‘nice’ and very much a party of the centre that could keep its extremists in order. Cameron is in the same position, he’s made the Tories seem nice and therefore electable.

As for him because all fizz and no substance, you clearly haven’t been following any of the extensive policy work that has been announced in the last year or two or have any understanding of the importance given to Oliver Letwin’s office.

Shock to your system it may be, but just this once Mr. Harris I totally agree with you!

Look at Britain’s GDP in ’79 ($417bn), and then look at it in ’97 ($1.3 trillion) . Does that difference support you when you call the Conservatives economically incompetent?

You’re at your best when you’re thoughtful, not talking delusional non-sense that you know isn’t true.

Cameron wants to be Prime minister no more no less! The British people see through him like a pane of glass.

Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece#ixzz0bUIr59QN

A lot of what you say may be true, but I highly doubt that it will stop Cameron becoming Prime Minister.

The problem is for Labour is that the people prefer the David Cameron you (incorrectly)describe to Gordon Brown by a million miles. You should sort yourselves out first then look around. You are grasping at straws and deluding yourselves again.
Labour just have nothing to offer only spend,spend,spend.

In the next 153 days or so, Cameron and Osborne will have to come up with some actual policies. We’ll then see what substance they’re made of (and indeed if the majority of your commenters will agree with their stated policies).

You may be right in your belief of our (the electorate’s) opinion of Cameron, and therefore the state of the Tory party, but what the hell does it say about the Labour Party? The leader is deeply unpopular with the nation, and clearly an electoral liability; he’s the kind of man who allows his cabal to bully and smear his opponents, most of whom are actually members of his own side. Is the sort of person the Labour Party deem suitable to lead the party, and the country? And not enough of the Labour party have the courage to do anything about it. Now Tom, best call a glazier to fix your glass house!

I detest Cameron and I detest the Tories

But not quite as much as I detest Gordon Brown and New Labour.

I am not alone either. There are MILLIONS of us.

(Forward this to Malcolm Tucker, asap)

Tom

Sorry when did you actually ask the electorate whether they liked or trusted David Cameron?

My family and myself, were the last time I looked, the electorate and yet we like him and we trust him.

We like him because he is decent and well spoken, he is confident and is well educated, his policies seem interesting and at times dynamic.

Oh and on his education I have one cse to my name Tom, I would have loved to have gone to Eton…aspiration is part of life Tom dont you Labour folk want anyone to ever be anyone?

We like him because of the way he behaved when his son died earlier this year (I assume you dont trust him either tom even after that tragedy?) he behaved with utter dignity and we realised that he was human just like us.

What we dont like is the guy your lot have in charge, he took someones job without asking us…the electorate.

He tells us all what we should do, how we should live and he keeps telling us that he getting on with the job and thats what he has there to do…no he is not because we never asked him to do it.

I am sorry but I actually find your article quite personal and you dont actually offer an alternative do you?

Just witter on about Cameron like you feel that you have to….your party had the chance to replace Brown but you didnt did you…so now what you are just going to go all Cameron hating on us?

who the hell would want another 5 years of the unelected catstrophe that is sitting in No.10 right now?

Anyway I am sure as a politican you will be able to provide evidence that the electorate does not trust nor like David Cameron…happy to see you attach it in your response…so we can all see it then.

thanks and a happy new year to you and your family.

Tom Wiley

Sorry Tom, whatever most people think of Cameron, they like him better than Brown (for myriad reasons). Personally, though not a Tory, I can remember him being charming and polite toward me after I told him what I thought of him and his party back in 1997. I can’t imagine old goat features would bother to lower himself to talk to an ignorant english pleb like me. So it goes.

Ya-huh… right…

I’m missing out on these discussions. My New Year resolution was to stop using MPs’ blogs, but I seem to be addicted. Help me!!!

I like Cameron. I wouldn’t go for a pint with him, because I don’t drink beer. But if a glass of red wine was in the offing, I’d be there. I’d take the opportunity to explain why I won’t be voting for him. All the major parties need to understand that the electorate is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic, so I’ll be voting UKIP. It won’t affect the outcome in the area I live, but it will remind the Tories that the English (at least) don’t want to be ruled by the EU.

I wouldn’t get out of bed for the chance to speak to Gordon Brown. I might not manage to keep myself polite.

Even in its darkest days, Labour was never short of leadership material at the top of the party

—————–

Mince – that’s why you’ve still got Gordon Brown at the helm.

Mind you, as bad as Labour have got, and my God you have got a Ph.D in that (remember the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing – well Tony Blair didn’t did he), you are nowhere near as bad as the Tories.

It’s bizarre, Labour are now making good noises, but it’s almost as if you are in opposition to yourself – because for the past twelve years you have been pacifying the Tory vote by acting (in some ways) like the Tories. I said in some ways.

Now the real Tories are to the fore, Labour has realised itself at last.

Too late methinks, too late.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/6924891/Ken-Clarke-Tories-are-ready-to-put-up-taxes-to-cut-the-deficit.html

Boudicca

You’d be paying. He’ll order the most expensive Margaux on the wine list.

It’s what Tories do.

I had to re-read this. I thought you had cut and pasted it from my blog.

Well, nearly.

As OH says, one can detest Cameron a little less than Gordon Brown, though, fortunately, we in Scotland have a proper third choice of the SNP.

Here is a little story for you. When “WebCameron” was first up and running I found their faux cinema verite style almost emetic; cloying and matey. There was a comment section on it, but it became quite clear, early on, that not only did Cameron not moderate it, he never got to read the less than flattering comments – they were deleted by a flunky. I found this out because of an error in their system in which an “out of office reply” message reached me from the hotmail account of said lackey,(where the comments were sent for moderation) in reply to a comment I had left.

All of that, “You can speak directly to Dave” stuff was of course, piffle.

It kind of set the scene for me. It showed, and of course subsequent staged photo opps have showed, that Cameron is all fur coat and no knickers. Remember the one of him furtively making sure his white rubber “make poverty history” band was showing?

The fact is, we are going to replace one load of third raters with another load of third raters: devoid of ideas, reliant on PR and unable to be honest about their intentions.

Old Holborn.

I doubt it. Whether you like him or not, he’s obviously a gentleman. Which is not something you can say about the man currently occupying No.10.

A Gentleman?

May I remind you, Eton has “produced” 18 Prime Ministers. Which of them would you conside a “gentleman”?

Walpole, Sir Robert, KG, 1st Earl of Orford (1676–1745) PM 1721–1742
Pitt, William, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708–1778) PM 1756–1757, 1757–1761 and 1766–1768
Bute, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of (1713–1792) PM 1762–1763
Grenville, George (1712–1770) PM 1763–1765
North, Frederick, 8th Baron (1732–1792) PM 1770–1782
Grenville, William, 1st Baron (1759–1834) PM 1806–1807
Canning, George (1770–1827) PM 1827
Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of (1769–1852) PM 1828–1830 and 1834
Grey, Charles, 2nd Earl (1764–1845) PM 1830–1834
Melbourne, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount (1779–1848) PM 1834 and 1835–1841
Derby, Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of (1799–1869) PM 1852, 1858–1859 and 1866–1868
Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–1898) PM 1868–1874, 1880–1885, 1886 and 1892–1894
Salisbury, Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of (1830–1903) PM 1885–1886, 1886–1892 and 1895–1902
Rosebery, Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of (1847–1929) PM 1894–1895
Balfour, Arthur (1848–1930) PM 1902–1905, later 1st Earl of Balfour
Eden, Sir Anthony (1897–1977) PM 1955–1957, later 1st Earl of Avon
Macmillan, Harold (1894–1986) PM 1957–1963, later 1st Earl of Stockton
Douglas-Home, Sir Alec (1903–1995) PM 1963–1964, formerly 14th Earl of Home, later Baron Home of the Hirsel

Chichester-Clark, James (1923–2002) PM of Northern Ireland 1969–1971, later Baron Moyola

Vejjajiva, Abhisit [Mark] (1964– ) PM of Thailand

My vote goes to Balfour (for stuffing the Palestinians on the orders of Rothschild. The Middle East has never been the same). Yours?

As I believe (and the media too evidently) that the floating voters will swing to who they THINK will win, rather than who they WANT to win, the issue of substance is really not as important as you reckon.

David Cameron may be lacking in charisma, but I don’t think the word ‘trust’ comes very high on the list. The word distrust or mistrust are certainly higher on the agenda where Labour are concerned.
I don’t think a lot of the electorate are really that bothered about Cameron’s substance, as long as they can vote Labour out.
You also said “Cameron is the best the Conservative Party has!” A shot in the foot there Tom, Is Gordon Brown the best the Labour Party has?

Think Timbone has it there, much will be said over the next 5 months , but its a waste of time and effort.

Tom, I think there is some truth in what you say in that I don’t sense, anywhere, any great enthusiasm for a Cameron-led government.

But that’s because, after the expenses scandal, non-existent WMDs, stealth taxes and generally being lied to, there isn’t any great enthusiasm for any kind of government that has politicians in it. The current generation of MPs has destroyed public trust in the entire political process, and although some individual duck-house-buying Tory MPs have done more than their share, the greatest part of the blame has to rest with the party that has been in power for more than a decade.

In 1997, people believed that politics could change things for the better. Now, most people think it doesn’t make any difference. Against that background it is hard to see how any Tory leader is going to be swept to power on a tide of popular rejoicing, as Blair was in 1997.

“The poll also found that Cameron was backed over Gordon Brown as the better leader, by 54 per cent to 46 per cent.”

In Scotland.

Cameron’s unique selling point at the moment is that he isn’t Brown. Leaving aside the matter that Brown’s image problem is something being actively fuelled by the media, voters still aren’t convinced by Cameron.

His public persona is too PR, too slick and superficial, too weedy, too metrocentric Notting Hill-billy, too apt to pander to whatever focus-groups say they want (eg his recent ‘isn’t all this elf and safety business a lot of silly nonsense’ speech).

People who are desperate for a Tory government are giving him the benefit of the doubt at the moment, but deep down they’ve got their reservations.

A lot depends on what Brown does. His eyesight continues to cause him problems (which his punishing workload must contribute to), he’s got two young children whose childhood he’s missing out on. I wonder if he thought being PM was a bit like his father’s job as a church minister – that is, that his position would be more or less unassailable and his parishoners would realise that he was a man of good faith who was doing the best he could. Well, politics isn’t like that, unfortunately.

“The poll also found that Cameron was backed over Gordon Brown as the better leader, by 54 per cent to 46 per cent.”

In Scotland.

————————

Tut tut, you are being misleading. The poll only sampled the seats that the Tories are targetting.

The idea of a Tory revival in Scotland is at this stage laughable, and we all know it.

Tut tut, you are being misleading. The poll only sampled the seats that the Tories are targetting.

The idea of a Tory revival in Scotland is at this stage laughable, and we all know it.

Quite.

- a man of good faith who was doing the best he could. Well, politics isn’t like that, unfortunately -

Neither is Brown.

I don’t think it’s how Cameron stacks up against Brown.

It’s how he stacks up against David Miliband.

Not very well, I’d say.

(Though both are powder puffs over the EU)

David Cameron’s dignity in grief was very moving and endearing, but so of course was Gordon Brown’s when he lost his daughter. This horrendous thing they have in common shows both to be good souls. I was always a big fan of Gordon Brown, but think,through no fault of his own, his time passed, and he took over too late. In the unlikely event I had Brown and Cameron on the phone wanting to share a bottle of wine with me, I think I would go for Cameron. As far as other potential leaders are concerned, I think Michael Gove might be a future bigwig.

I don’t have the opportunity to vote directly for Cameron. I will have the opportunity to vote for a member of his party. Although she is my current MP, I really have little info to judge whether or not she (or any other MP) is good at the job.Or at least that was the situation until the publication of MPs expenses. Whilst I’m certain most MPs would wish that one to be permanently swept under the carpet, it has become a very good source of reference for me to assess the character and integrety of sitting MPs. I have trawled through many (not all) pages of these expense claims and in general have found the claims of the majority of Labour members to be more reasonable than those of the Conservatives. Having, like the majority of ordinary folk, had to struggle with the costs of running a household I can now make comparisons with an MP’s second home costs.
Take for example the Select Committee for Energy and Climate Change whose job it is to scrutinise Ed Millibands department. Of the original 14 members,8 are Labour,4 Cons,1 LibD,1 ScotN.
Being a layperson,I can use the expense documents to look at these members household fuel costs.All, apart from 3 of the 4 Conservatives, have the very reasonable fuel costs associated with a second home, single person use. However, when looking at these 3 Conservative members costs a very different picture emerges.One who just happens to be the Shadow Minister for Energy and CC, submitted Oil and Gas claims for a year of over 4500 pounds.Another has claims for 1300 pounds for gas alone.The other has a quarter gas bill of over 1000 pounds.Truly excessive amounts for use of finite fuels .They have all gone on record stating that they spend much less time at their second home than their main although interestingly all 4 have registered their constituency home as their second home. When you combine this with the fact that the three female Conservative members have the poorest meetings attendance record namely, 6 out of 23, 8 out of 23, 12 out 23, you have to question if they really are suitable members for such a committee. I will admit to supporting the Conservatives. That was up until the expenses scandal.

Much as i detest the current bunch of tories i believe they do have some suitable alternative leaders, Hannan,Carswell and Davis spring to mind,much more in touch with the poulace than Call Me Dave, as for this comment Even in its darkest days, Labour was never short of leadership material at the top of the party.I have just picked myself off the floor after an hour laughing at that one, come on Tom surely you can do better than that!

Resorting to a personal attack on Cameron already? Not surprising really – you have so little else to work with. Even so, this was a very poor piece Tom.

The Tories have no policies? Doubtful, they have plenty of policies – they just havn’t told you what they are yet.

They’ve been holding Labour in what’s practically been a vacuum of nothing to talk about , nothing to score cheap political points off pretty much since Cameron took over. If you look back its been a strategy that’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

We’ll look back on the last year or so in due course & realise it has been politically risky but also brilliant. Labour has had next to nothing to shoot at & every time it tries to have a go at something it comes off worst because it has just about no documented facts about any Tory policies to talk about.

A few that have been talked about Labour has even tried to shamelessly steal (only of course they’ve tried to modify them first & screwed them up in the process!) Meanwhile every labour screw-up is fair game. I bet its been extremely frustrating.

But to be honest I don’t need to know the detail of Tory policies, the detail is massively unimportant given the current disastrous state of play – what we need to know is the direction and that is abundantly clear economically and socially. It’ll be a serious tightening of belts and an attempt to pull the ship off the rocks – just like it had to be in 1979. If people don’t whinge & accept their share of the load we’ll be OK. But it remains to be seen whether under the culture of “someone else will pay” that’s become so prevalent over the last 10 years it can be done or not. 30 years ago this country had some backbone with regard to stuff like this – whether it still does is going to be an interesting test.

And we also know what direction Labour will take us – just more of the same – more nanny state, more borrowing, more intervention, more lowest common denominator, more debt, more red tape, lots more stealth taxes – and probably a trip to the IMF – just like the last time.

Sooner or later all Labour governments run out of other people’s money. And lets face it, The labour party can’t even run its own finances these days can it? How exactly are you going to fight an election anyway and what state will Labour’s finances be in afterwards?

And do I (we) trust Cameron? As others have said, he has dignity, gravitas & ideas. He’s articulate & well educated & he has energy. He was also elected to lead the Tory party in a free , open and fair election – and he’s managed to unite the party. Not everyone in the party agrees with him on everything – but the same is true of any party under any leader. Quite how Blair managed to keep the unions so quiet was always a mystery (and brilliantly executed).

But nor has he claimed to abolish boom and bust (like your man King Canute) or sold us down the river to the Eurocrats!

Euro referendum promise? What of it? We were stitched up an sold down the river before he could do something meaningful about it. What’s the point in wasting yet more money you don’t have to prove a point when you can then do absolutely nothing about it?

In comparison to Brown, what’s not to trust?

In contrast, we all know how Brown got to where he is – and just look at photographs of him now versus 10 years ago – he looks half dead! (No seriously, he actually now looks ill these days.)

You say no enthusiasm for a Cameron led government? Do you see much for another Labour Government? Besides, after expenses-gate etc there’s little enthusiasm for politics or politicians anywhere – there is also very, very little enthusiasm for the medicine our country is going to need to take. However, the polls indicate that despite the outrageous electoral boundary rigging that’s gone on for the last 10 years, you lot are probably on your way south because people are finally becoming convinced that enough is enough.

We’ll only really find out what a Tory gov’t will do after the election if they win. But lets be fair, if Labour had clearly listed out the list of stealth taxes it was planning on everything from pension funds to national insurance to fiscal drag on allowances etc in 1997 do you really think the margin of victory would have been as great, if indeed you would have won at all?

Best not to throw stones in glass houses eh?

“Boudicca
You’d be paying. He’ll order the most expensive Margaux on the wine list.
It’s what Tories do.”

Classic OH.

I also hope you escape the carnage Tom.

Tom,

If you were never short of leadership, why on earth was Brown waved in?

I really, really don’t expect an answer to this, but it is a legitimate question. In the end, the Labour Party is eternally stained by letting Brown of his leash. You put mad dogs down, not make them leader of the pack, for heavens’ sake