Ten years as Conservative party Leader, and five years in as PM, and Cameron still remains most popular party Leader in the polls. I would say that remains a trump card and major asset for the Conservative party going into this GE. I backed Cameron over Davies in 2005 as party Leader, and then Ruth Davidson over Murdo Fraser in Scottish Leadership contest in 2011, both choices have been more than been vindicated.
Popularity figures among party members for leadership mean nothing, people upset tend to leave and therefore it is possible to be both deeply unpopular and at the same time increase your popularity rating from party members. Out of curiousity I went to look for party membership prompted by this conversation
Looks like those unhappy people voted with their feet to me so I certainly view the "popularity" figure with a certain contempt. Same naturally applies to all parties with a falling membership, it distorts those figures
is that adjusted for those that have shuffled off this mortal coil?
The conservative party has these demogrraphic problems, the saem as teh republicans in the US, doesn't it? In that sense, Dave is no doubt right to try to get the younger metrosexuals in. The older lads may be more certain to vote, but they're also more certain to be leaving us soon
Frankly I have no idea, I was merely pointing out that saying x is popular with party members is pretty meaningless when you have lost a load of members. Some undoubtedly died, some left like SeanF because they didn't like Cameron, some left for other reasons.
The simple fact is we don't know the proportions therefore the "fact" that a party leader has good popularity amongst members is meaningless as we can't measure how many have dropped membership because they don't like the leader. Quoting the fact as some sort of trump card is therefore risible
Ten years as Conservative party Leader, and five years in as PM, and Cameron still remains most popular party Leader in the polls. I would say that remains a trump card and major asset for the Conservative party going into this GE. I backed Cameron over Davies in 2005 as party Leader, and then Ruth Davidson over Murdo Fraser in Scottish Leadership contest in 2011, both choices have been more than been vindicated.
Popularity figures among party members for leadership mean nothing, people upset tend to leave and therefore it is possible to be both deeply unpopular and at the same time increase your popularity rating from party members. Out of curiousity I went to look for party membership prompted by this conversation
Looks like those unhappy people voted with their feet to me so I certainly view the "popularity" figure with a certain contempt. Same naturally applies to all parties with a falling membership, it distorts those figures
is that adjusted for those that have shuffled off this mortal coil?
The conservative party has these demogrraphic problems, the saem as teh republicans in the US, doesn't it? In that sense, Dave is no doubt right to try to get the younger metrosexuals in. The older lads may be more certain to vote, but they're also more certain to be leaving us soon
Frankly I have no idea, I was merely pointing out that saying x is popular with party members is pretty meaningless when you have lost a load of members. Some undoubtedly died, some left like SeanF because they didn't like Cameron, some left for other reasons.
The simple fact is we don't know the proportions therefore the "fact" that a party leader has good popularity amongst members is meaningless as we can't measure how many have dropped membership because they don't like the leader. Quoting the fact as some sort of trump card is therefore risible
The tittle-tattle amongst the Tory supporters has already started. After the election, this could be an all out civil war. I think it would also encompass the Tory UKIP supporters.
One danger when everyone expects a hung Parliament is that everyone can come out with daft populist policies safe in the knowledge that they'll end up on the cutting room floor in the post-election negotiations.
Separately, if Labour's first budget would cut the deficit every year, are we to infer that they have no intention of actually ever eliminating it?
What is so special about eliminating the deficit ? in how many years in the 80 years , was there a surplus ?
When Tories want a surplus, what they really want is to destroy the public sector except defence !
The national debt has almost doubled in the last five years.
As the debt increases, the debt servicing costs also increases meaning that a larger proportion of total government spending goes on debt servicing cost rather than spending on government services.
Public sector employees should want a balanced budget.
If that 134k membership figure for the Tories in September 2013 down from 250k in 2005 then there is a very, very good chance that the Tories have less members than the SNP.
Discounting Social Members from the Labour figures, means it is very likely that the SNP is in fact the largest political party in the UK.
One danger when everyone expects a hung Parliament is that everyone can come out with daft populist policies safe in the knowledge that they'll end up on the cutting room floor in the post-election negotiations.
Separately, if Labour's first budget would cut the deficit every year, are we to infer that they have no intention of actually ever eliminating it?
What is so special about eliminating the deficit ? in how many years in the 80 years , was there a surplus ?
When Tories want a surplus, what they really want is to destroy the public sector except defence !
The national debt has almost doubled in the last five years.
As the debt increases, the debt servicing costs also increases meaning that a larger proportion of total government spending goes on debt servicing cost rather than spending on government services.
Public sector employees should want a balanced budget.
Bollox ! Why Public sector employees only ?
Not only public sector employees, but as public sector employees jobs/salaries are part of government spending they are being/and will be squeezed as debt servicing costs grow.
The Conservative Party don't remotely believe in "paying the national debt" or "reducing the defecit". That's merely an opportunistic attack to hurt the opposition. It can be seen in a similar way to how the Tories used to discuss the UK's credit rating, which the Conservatives and Osborne suddenly shut up about when the UK was downgraded by Moody's and Fitch.
However, the Conservatives do see the debt and deficit as a means to an end. Want to permanently reduce the size of the state? Run up huge deficits so the UK can't afford to do anything else. Permanent austerity is a right-wing dream.
Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated during this parliament that the majority of Tories who claimed to care about the national debt don't really, otherwise they would have been up in arms about the government's unfunded tax cuts.
Instead, whether they realised it or not, they were uncritically parroting the Tory attack lines, which were happily repeated uncritically by a co-operative right-wing press.
Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to the right, although the right tends to be far more disciplined, organised and have more resources at their disposal to push their preferred narrative. In general, it's somewhat scary how people's beliefs, which they genuinely think are sincere, are warped by false narratives created by the parties and the press.
The Conservative Party don't remotely believe in "paying the national debt" or "reducing the defecit". That's merely an opportunistic attack to hurt the opposition. It can be seen in a similar way to how the Tories used to discuss the UK's credit rating, which the Conservatives and Osborne suddenly shut up about when the UK was downgraded by Moody's and Fitch.
However, the Conservatives do see the debt and deficit as a means to an end. Want to permanently reduce the size of the state? Run up huge deficits so the UK can't afford to do anything else. Permanent austerity is a right-wing dream.
Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated during this parliament that the majority of Tories who claimed to care about the national debt don't really, otherwise they would have been up in arms about the government's unfunded tax cuts.
Instead, whether they realised it or not, they were uncritically parroting the Tory attack lines, which were happily repeated uncritically by a co-operative right-wing press.
Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to the right, although the right tends to be far more disciplined, organised and have more resources at their disposal to push narratives. In general, it's somewhat scary how people's beliefs, which they genuinely think are sincere, are warped by false narratives created by the parties and the press.
Never attribute to conspiracy something that can be explained by incompetence.
I think the Cameroons: 1. Are mostly interested in elections. 2. Did not have the courage to try to sell cuts in government spending to voters. 3. Hoped tax receipts would increase when the economy cycled up. 4. Are clueless.
Never attribute to conspiracy something that can be explained by incompetence.
I think the Cameroons: 1. Are mostly interested in elections. 2. Did not have the courage to try to sell cuts in government spending to voters. 3. Hoped tax receipts would increase when the economy cycled up. 4. Are clueless.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy as much as the Conservatives believing in fundamentally reshaping the state, while simultaneously trying to sell a fundamentally different vision to the electorate. The product in reality is just different to the marketing.
The government didn't remotely need to "sell cuts in government spending to voters". This government increased VAT by 2.5% with the express purpose of cutting the deficit. Instead, they used that revenue to deliver income tax cuts and a huge state pension increases.
That's not incompetence, that's an ideological policy.
And if they didn't want to "sell cuts in government spending" then what's the deal with council tax freezes? No effect whatsoever on the deficit. Again, ideological.
Never attribute to conspiracy something that can be explained by incompetence.
I think the Cameroons: 1. Are mostly interested in elections. 2. Did not have the courage to try to sell cuts in government spending to voters. 3. Hoped tax receipts would increase when the economy cycled up. 4. Are clueless.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy as much as the Conservatives believing in fundamentally reshaping the state, while simultaneously trying to sell a fundamentally different vision to the electorate. The product in reality is just different to the marketing.
The government didn't remotely need to "sell cuts in government spending to voters". This government increased VAT by 2.5% with the express purpose of cutting the deficit. Instead, they used that revenue to deliver income tax cuts and a huge state pension increases.
That's not incompetence, that's an ideological policy.
And if they didn't want to "sell cuts in government spending" then what's the deal with council tax freezes? No effect whatsoever on the deficit. Again, ideological.
1. Council tax freezes are popular with voters. The Cameroons are only interested in the next election.
2. State pension increases are popular with pensioners. Pensioners are more likely to vote than the average citizen. The Cameroons are only interested in the next election.
3. Income tax cuts are again popular with voters. As government borrowing is deferred taxation, these are illusionary unless funded by cutting government spending.
4. If the Cameroons have been trying to sell low taxes, and small government in the last five years, I certainly haven't heard them.
At least Obama did us one favour by keeping the Kardashian of politics out of the White House. Famous simply for being famous.
But I say bring on the Hillary candidacy. No Democrat is more beatable. She's gonna spend a year selling her non-existant record of achievement and trying to deflect unanswered questions about Benghazi, emails, murky fundraising, Travelgate, etc, etc...
My own particular favorite are the Hillary tapes where she laughs about getting the rapist of a 12 year old girl off with two months.
Comments
https://yougov.co.uk/#/centre
Discounting Social Members from the Labour figures, means it is very likely that the SNP is in fact the largest political party in the UK.
However, the Conservatives do see the debt and deficit as a means to an end. Want to permanently reduce the size of the state? Run up huge deficits so the UK can't afford to do anything else. Permanent austerity is a right-wing dream.
Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated during this parliament that the majority of Tories who claimed to care about the national debt don't really, otherwise they would have been up in arms about the government's unfunded tax cuts.
Instead, whether they realised it or not, they were uncritically parroting the Tory attack lines, which were happily repeated uncritically by a co-operative right-wing press.
Of course, this phenomenon is not unique to the right, although the right tends to be far more disciplined, organised and have more resources at their disposal to push their preferred narrative. In general, it's somewhat scary how people's beliefs, which they genuinely think are sincere, are warped by false narratives created by the parties and the press.
I think the Cameroons:
1. Are mostly interested in elections.
2. Did not have the courage to try to sell cuts in government spending to voters.
3. Hoped tax receipts would increase when the economy cycled up.
4. Are clueless.
The government didn't remotely need to "sell cuts in government spending to voters". This government increased VAT by 2.5% with the express purpose of cutting the deficit. Instead, they used that revenue to deliver income tax cuts and a huge state pension increases.
That's not incompetence, that's an ideological policy.
And if they didn't want to "sell cuts in government spending" then what's the deal with council tax freezes? No effect whatsoever on the deficit. Again, ideological.
"Never attribute to conspiracy something that can be explained by incompetence.”
Very wise. Remember when asked why he thought he should be PM some years ago Cameron replied that “he thought he’d he’d be good at it!”
What was that about about “without vision the people perish!”?
2. State pension increases are popular with pensioners. Pensioners are more likely to vote than the average citizen. The Cameroons are only interested in the next election.
3. Income tax cuts are again popular with voters. As government borrowing is deferred taxation, these are illusionary unless funded by cutting government spending.
4. If the Cameroons have been trying to sell low taxes, and small government in the last five years, I certainly haven't heard them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11407030/The-Tories-are-paying-the-price-for-their-lack-of-a-grand-vision.html
But I say bring on the Hillary candidacy. No Democrat is more beatable. She's gonna spend a year selling her non-existant record of achievement and trying to deflect unanswered questions about Benghazi, emails, murky fundraising, Travelgate, etc, etc...
My own particular favorite are the Hillary tapes where she laughs about getting the rapist of a 12 year old girl off with two months.
More on that in this piece: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/