It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Where Did CamCon Go Wrong?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 12:12 AM
One interesting story recently has been the rise and fall of Conservative support.

They went from this…
1. (March 6th 2007: Tory 38% Lab 30%)
2. (26th June 2006 Tory 39% Lab 32%)
3. (Oh
Worst Political Prophecy since Roman Times?

To This…
1. Lead drops: Tory 36% Lab 33.
2.$475627.htm One week into Browns leadership: Lab 37% Tory 34.
3. August 7th: Lab 40% Tory 33.
4. And Now: Lab 42 Tory 32:

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 week?

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.

1. There was a little scandal, and that was that flooding victims where being given £14 million aid to share between them. Cameron 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
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]

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Well, there's a few points there to be going on with which really is your answer, in part at least - there is no one reason why the Tories look so bad at the moment so here's my top five countdown.

5. Brown honeymoon: all new leaders get an element of the let's give him a try vote.

4. Cameron honeymoon: and it eventually it wears off...

3. Time to go: Blair was seen as damaged goods by much of the population, (largely unfairly), but at the least was somewhat shop soiled. The UK electorate has a limited attention span and his sell by date had expired.

2. Muddled thinking: Cameron's essential appeal was that he was a Blairish politician at a time when that's what people were accustomed to. There was lots about Blair which the Tories disliked but there was a powerful body of opinion that could not escape the philosophy that they needed to out-Blair Blair. They were prepared to go with a Blair style figure because they believed that was what would succeed despite all that they disliked about the Blair image. In short he was a superficial PR politician but he was their superficial PR politician. What they forgot was that Blair was an original and the remake is never as good.

1. The boy done good: Brown slipped seamlessly into the big chair and dealt with a rash of important issues calmly and without fuss. Suddenly a lot of people recalled that there used to be politicians like this in the past and a media led three ring circus was neither necessary or attractive. The prospect of calm unfussy leadership after the Blair years appears very attractive to many, (for now at least).

The opinion polls are still heavily influenced by the froth of Brown's arrival and Cameron may well yet drive a Tory resurgence - it would be a very brave man who went to the country this autumn whatever the pollsters are saying.

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 11:20 AM
Liberal, perhaps a more apt title for this thread would be "Has CamCon gone wrong?"

The Conservatives are going through a rough patch at the moment, but it happens all the time in politics. Cameron shouldn't be dismissed by anyone as a credible political force (love him or loathe him) until he faces a general election - that's the true test of a political leader, surely.

As Timeless said, Brown's bounce is ongoing at the moment and his handling of the terrorist scare, floods, foot and mouth and so on has earned him a lot of points with the voters. There's still time for everything to unravel, though. A week is a long time in politics... even if there's an autumn poll, the Brown bounce could wear off overnight. It's inevitable.

I think it's more likely that the bounce will start to wear off after Parliament comes back from recess (and you'll see a similar situation in Scotland with the Scot Nats...) and the real business of government begins.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Ste2652

Liberal, perhaps a more apt title for this thread would be "Has CamCon gone wrong?"

You don’t go from an 8 point lead to a 10 point gap without going wrong somewhere. I concede it probably happened when Cameron was still popular but will have disguised by Blair being so unpopular. However this merely makes the question of where Cameron went wrong more interesting, he is going wrong by not outperforming Brown, this says something about his policies or lack of them.

Cameron shouldn't be dismissed by anyone as a credible political force (love him or loathe him) until he faces a general election - that's the true test of a political leader, surely.

“Quite man” IDS was, and he was the first to momentarily break Labours lead.
However unlike IDS it isn’t so glaringly obvious (from the media) that Cameron will fail. More importantly Cameron apparently has many policies up his sleeve. I don’t blame him for being quite about them as Labour has already nicked one (the Border Police), and I don’t blame Cameron for giving it away as he needs to keep people confident in himself.

However is it not the case that Cameron’s response to…
1. War in Iraq
2. Scottish independence
3. Flooding
4. Publicly absorbing slack from Brown for pre-1997 events

Has been less than adequate; and (with flooding in particular) unnecessarily un-provocative (quite to Labours advantage).
5. And: So far housing has been “unnecessarily” quite (though admittedly that’s exactly the sort of thing will popularise themselves with before the next election).

Foreign Policy: I doubt the Tories will win until they have either someone as incredibly unpopular as Blair, or have a bit more originality (left or right) on the foreign policy front. If the Tories want to attract more Brown-Black voters, and if they want to eat away at Labours support from the Middle Class (conscious based voting) Labour voters, then surely they’ll need to differentiate a bit?

As for the Honey Moon period: It implies the reason for Browns support is the press being temporally biased towards Brown. Do you really think this is significant?
Obviously it’s nothing like when Blair was elected in 1997; maybe there has been some extra camera time to Brown? But it's nothing that’s got I (for one) outraged about media standards. What Honey Moon "justified" bias have you been watching?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

new topics

top topics

log in