One interesting story recently has been the rise and fall of Conservative support.
They went from this…
(March 6th 2007: Tory 38% Lab 30%)
/news/2006/06/26/ntory126.xml (26th June 2006 Tory 39% Lab 32%)
Worst Political Prophecy since Roman Times? politics.guardian.co.uk...
Lead drops: Tory 36% Lab 33.
$475627.htm One week into Browns
leadership: Lab 37% Tory 34.
/news/2007/07/15/nbrown115.xml August 7th: Lab 40% Tory 33.
4. And Now: Lab 42 Tory 32: www.guardian.co.uk...
How’s It Happened?
I think it’s pretty obvious that Tony Blair was a BIG liability towards the Labour Party during the last months or year. How else can Brown cause a
Labour lead in just one
But what else has gone wrong?
Could it be that Cameron was never really that popular? And that he only had serious support because he wasn’t Tony Blair?
In which case is it that great a idea that the Tory Party has a leader who tries to imitate the style of Tony Blair?
They’re certainly hinting
at lots of ideas…
1. Axe Inheritance Tax
2. Reduce Red Tape
3. Simplify Business Tax
4. More Green Tax’s
5. Tory Commission Wants 21 billion Tax Cut
But with the exception of Green Tax’s I haven’t seen Cameron arguing for any of them. In fact last time I saw him on TV he said “obviously the
floods are a natural disaster”
Now if I was Tory leader, and loads of people had just been flooded the “words natural disaster” wouldn’t really be in my dictionary. “Civil
engineering disaster” maybe, “mean, Brown, spending, disaster” almost certainly. When I saw Cameron blaming the floods on the climate I almost
thought he was in government, because it’s what governments should say not oppositions.
There was a little scandal, and that was that flooding victims where being given £14 million aid to share between them
could have demanded that this money (which should have gone into defences) was a insult. But he didn’t.
Which begs the question…
Is the Blair imitating, Etonian, toff really up to the job?
2. Cameron has failed miserably to exploit the housing crisis. There’s been some enthuses on home building but not enough, e.g. he hasn’t used
words like “criminal” to describe Labours planning policies which are pricing the working class (and middle
) out of owning a home.
3. By now he should have said he couldn’t give a **** about what the Tory party was like in 1997.
4. And he’s been too “nice” to throw his own ideas in the bin, and exploit Iraq. In fact foreign policy wise there’s no major differences at
all between the parties.
And yet it’s not like what Labour has is perfect.
5. He’s made no
noise at all about the majority of people wanting Scottish independence (in spite of only having one MP there, and
Conservatives getting more votes than Labour in England; therefore Scotland cost the Tories the last election).
But image wise he’s certainly moved the Tory Party closure to the Liberal Left, Education, NHS its 1997 again. Oh; and Tory MP brutally sacrificed
for talking frankly about life in the military for minorities politics.guardian.co.uk...
but I beg to differ whether this is the Centre Ground.
Michael Howard made (almost) as much noise about Education and the NHS. However though supporting these things may give political parties the right to
exist in this country, it’s hardly to a right to power in itself.
Let’s look at it another way: Do the Tories intend to win the election when Labour stops supporting Education and the NHS? It would be interesting
to see what new life forms will have evolved on earth by that time.
Anyway:How do you explain the rise and fall of CamCon ATS?
What should they do to stop Labour winning the next election?
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]