UK General Election 2010

[Daniel]

Perhaps it's just me but I'm starting to get the feeling that the Tories aren't going to win this election as easily as was first thought.

IIRC the Lib Dems were saying the other day that they wouldn't form a coallition with the tories if they're just going to slash govt spending straight away and now Dave is blaming Gordon for the BA strikes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8591337.stm

It just seems to me that the Tories were cruising to victory not that long ago and now Dave is doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[driveace]

The BIG problem here is that we are in so much DEBT,that really all the polititions are unhappy about taking it on,as it will be a very rough ride,After 13 years of Labour,the sleeze,the lies,the expenses scandel,the "Cab for hire",etc the strikes on BA and the railways,the unions who are Labours biggest donators ,now see Labour as a weak party.The sooner they go the better,BUT hard times lie ahead!!!!
He may be privately educated,but so are many big company bosses,but at least he needs a chance,we have tried the "Others" far too long ,and we need a change now!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The BIG problem here is that we are in so much DEBT,that really all the polititions are unhappy about taking it on,as it will be a very rough ride,After 13 years of Labour,the sleeze,the lies,the expenses scandel,the "Cab for hire",etc the strikes on BA and the railways,the unions who are Labours biggest donators ,now see Labour as a weak party.The sooner they go the better,BUT hard times lie ahead!!!!
He may be privately educated,but so are many big company bosses,but at least he needs a chance,we have tried the "Others" far too long ,and we need a change now!

AS an outsider, I can say that Cameron has played this all wrong and it proves he has poor political instincts. He has mirrored Labour on a few policies such as the global warming theories and carbon taxes. He has proven to be to the left of traditional Tory policy on national security (again my view I suppose from a far) and it is hard listening to him to not believe this is the same party that gave the world Margaret Thatcher. THAT is the problem. If you run with a platform simliar to your rivals, how can anyone really take you seriously, and how can the base of your party be really enthusiastic about supporting your leadership.

David Cameron is a bit of a buffoon in my opinion. He isn't anything but someone dragging the party to the center when 13 years of Labour rule has migrated its political compass towards the center. There is little difference in the eyes of voters and in the end, you end up satisfying no one.

I have seen enough of this guy on our news over here to know I wouldn't vote for him.....and I am the sort of modreately right of center small "c" conservative he would need to win an election as a Conservative leader. When The Canadian Tories were led by these "red" Tories, the Libreal party mopped the floor with them in election after election. We had 16 years of Pierre Trudeau's socialistic libreal notions because the idiots in the leadership of the Canadian Tories refused to push their policy right far enough to get some spacing from the leftish/center leaders that were in charge. You HAVE to give the voters a choice....

[BDunnell]

We had 16 years of Pierre Trudeau's socialistic libreal notions because the idiots in the leadership of the Canadian Tories refused to push their policy right far enough to get some spacing from the leftish/center leaders that were in charge. You HAVE to give the voters a choice....

You forget that our Conservative Party tried exactly that under the leadership of first William Hague, then Iain Duncan Smith, and finally Michael Howard. Yes, all of those individuals were, in their own ways, deeply unappealing characters as far as the electorate was concerned (yes, I know IDS never led the party into a general election, but his lack of popularity was obvious), but on each occasion the push to the right proved disastrous, as the Tories' general election disasters in 2001 and 2005 proved. So in a sense they have done exactly what the public seemed to want. In fact, 'seemed to want' sounds a bit weak. 'Clearly wanted' is better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You forget that our Conservative Party tried exactly that under the leadership of first William Hague, then Iain Duncan Smith, and finally Michael Howard. Yes, all of those individuals were, in their own ways, deeply unappealing characters as far as the electorate was concerned (yes, I know IDS never led the party into a general election, but his lack of popularity was obvious), but on each occasion the push to the right proved disastrous, as the Tories' general election disasters in 2001 and 2005 proved. So in a sense they have done exactly what the public seemed to want. In fact, 'seemed to want' sounds a bit weak. 'Clearly wanted' is better.

So if you move the same positions Labour has, this will work? I am not so sure....leadership is a factor and platform both have to mesh. I would suggest in the other 3 leaders, the platform wasn't quite what the voters may have wanted in your opinion, but a strong leader who can campaign effectively can sell what the others cannot. None of those 3 I suggest was good at selling their leadership.

[Dave B]

A few months ago it looked like a certain tory victory, all Cameron had to do was keep his mouth shut. But every time his flappy jaw opens and gibberish comes flooding out it reminds the public exactly why they should never be back in power.

Rarely has an incumbent government been so unpopular, yet you look at the chief opposition and realise that it actually could be a lot worse. Cameron likes to adapt the Obama rhetoric about a "time for change", but unlike America there's no sweeping movement behind the opposition. Far from being a vote for change, a Conservative government would mean more of the same, only worse.

[Mark in Oshawa]

A few months ago it looked like a certain tory victory, all Cameron had to do was keep his mouth shut. But every time his flappy jaw opens and gibberish comes flooding out it reminds the public exactly why they should never be back in power.

Rarely has an incumbent government been so unpopular, yet you look at the chief opposition and realise that it actually could be a lot worse. Cameron likes to adapt the Obama rhetoric about a "time for change", but unlike America there's no sweeping movement behind the opposition. Far from being a vote for change, a Conservative government would mean more of the same, only worse.

From Afar that was my opinion. The Tories are running with almost the same sort of platform as the current government. Yet Ben Tells me that the Tories must not move to the right...go figure...

[Dave B]

With the Conservatives moving more to the centre, many of their traditional voters have abandoned them to support UKIP or the BNP. They're both undesirable parties in their own ways (unless you're a racist with no desire to see the economy recover) but they've positioned themselves as right-but-not-too-far-right wing parties that the Thatcherite / Tebbitist generation and mindset can feel comfortable with.

Thus the traditional Tory support is now diluted three ways, with UKIP and the BNP attracting a significant minority. It's scary that anybody could vote for these lunatics, but if it helps keep Cameron out of Number 10 then I'll tolerate it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

With the Conservatives moving more to the centre, many of their traditional voters have abandoned them to support UKIP or the BNP. They're both undesirable parties in their own ways (unless you're a racist with no desire to see the economy recover) but they've positioned themselves as right-but-not-too-far-right wing parties that the Thatcherite / Tebbitist generation and mindset can feel comfortable with.

Thus the traditional Tory support is now diluted three ways, with UKIP and the BNP attracting a significant minority. It's scary that anybody could vote for these lunatics, but if it helps keep Cameron out of Number 10 then I'll tolerate it.

I would suggest there is an element to what you are saying that I can agree with EXCEPT those votes are not real serious in the long term. People who say they might go for UKIP or the BNP in a poll may even vote that way if the local candidate isn't a total loon, but it is vote parking until Cameron is dumped as leader of the Tories. We saw it here in Canada when the Conservative movement imploded.

The fact is the UK for the most part is a two party state ( only two parties are taken really seriously) and the rest are fringe parties with little hope of power, and just a general hope to make some points. Since the Two parties are running for the same mushy middle squishy voters, the reality is no one is happy. I would argue that in many ways McCain's effort to slide the GOP to the center cost him any chance of victory (although after Dubya, I don't think an act of God would have helped McCain).

The reality is most democratic nations have maybe 2 parties that can win, and a host of fringe parties. The fringe parties are parking spaces often for the voters dissatisfied with the leader of the party they most identify with but they certainly wont vote for the other guy. Just like The Perot movement ensured Clinton won two elections, I suggest UKIP and BNP might be doing the same thing to this dingbat Cameron....

[BeansBeansBeans]

It is clear that the election is not going to be the foregone conclusion we all though it would be just a few months ago.

The threat of a Cameron government will certainly see me voting labour, though I live in a safe labour seat so my vote won't make that big a difference.