"One reason some people vote Liberal Democrat is that they don't want to vote for the Labour party. And they don't want to vote for the Labour party because they don't agree with it.I voted Lib Dem in a safe Labour seat which should speak volumes, and yet I've been curiously harranged lately by bitter Labour supporters (hear and there) unable to grasp the magnitude of their party's failure with lines like "see what you just did" and "aren't you pleased you voted in the Tories now?" to which my answer had always been -- "I voted Lib Dem and got Lib Dem. In government. Where are you now?"
Showing posts with label general election 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label general election 2010. Show all posts
Politics Exactly ...
Politics Just one final quiz on the subject of the election. Without resorting to a web search, can you tell when Nick Clegg gave this interview to the BBC's Today Programme?
I'll post the answer here at midnight.
Answer: 5th January 2010 -- and he'd be giving the same interview for the next four months ...
I'll post the answer here at midnight.
Answer: 5th January 2010 -- and he'd be giving the same interview for the next four months ...
New Politics.
New Politics Throughout the campaign one of my mantras was "Vote Clegg, get Clegg" and unbelievably that is what's happened. Of course, I hadn't considered that we'd also get Eric Pickles, Theresa May, Ian Duncan Smith and bloody Michael Gove but somehow watching a giddy Vince Cable stepping up Downing Street to collect his job as Business Secretary went some way to cushioning the blow. Some. Way.
Yes, it's strange to see Nick standing behind a lectern next to David Cameron with the latter not deliberately misinterpreting his policies and it will be difficult for him to have to defend some of the more um, expressive, Tory policies in Prime Minister's Questions when the new PM is off abroad or ill. But he'll also technically be in charge of the country for a few stretches. Give or take, some give and take.
David Laws as Secretary to the Treasury, Osbourne's number two with Vince breathing down the new chancellor's neck too. That should make the budget make for interesting reading/listening. Danny Alexander as Scottish Secretary with David Mundell as his deputy. Chris Huhne possibly as Environment Minister in charge of a programme which includes the eradication of the extra airport runways in London.
The lambs and lions may be lying together but strangely this doesn't feel like the end of days. As requested in his statement last night, I'm going to trust Nick and the Liberal Democrats. Reading the coalition agreement I can't really believe how many Lib Dem policies are potentially going to implemented. The section on Civil Liberties is a jaw dropper. Stephanie Flanders has a run down of the tax policies.
What I will say, is that trust can only go so far. There's nothing in this document about culture or non-environmental science. It's in these areas I'd look to the Lib Dems to also have a hand in shaping policy, in not standing by and letting Murdoch's claws crush our rich media landscape for his own ends. In other words, if they fuck with the BBC, I'm going to the Greens.
Yes, it's strange to see Nick standing behind a lectern next to David Cameron with the latter not deliberately misinterpreting his policies and it will be difficult for him to have to defend some of the more um, expressive, Tory policies in Prime Minister's Questions when the new PM is off abroad or ill. But he'll also technically be in charge of the country for a few stretches. Give or take, some give and take.
David Laws as Secretary to the Treasury, Osbourne's number two with Vince breathing down the new chancellor's neck too. That should make the budget make for interesting reading/listening. Danny Alexander as Scottish Secretary with David Mundell as his deputy. Chris Huhne possibly as Environment Minister in charge of a programme which includes the eradication of the extra airport runways in London.
The lambs and lions may be lying together but strangely this doesn't feel like the end of days. As requested in his statement last night, I'm going to trust Nick and the Liberal Democrats. Reading the coalition agreement I can't really believe how many Lib Dem policies are potentially going to implemented. The section on Civil Liberties is a jaw dropper. Stephanie Flanders has a run down of the tax policies.
What I will say, is that trust can only go so far. There's nothing in this document about culture or non-environmental science. It's in these areas I'd look to the Lib Dems to also have a hand in shaping policy, in not standing by and letting Murdoch's claws crush our rich media landscape for his own ends. In other words, if they fuck with the BBC, I'm going to the Greens.
Politics Gordon Brown resigns. Perhaps Nick Clegg's pre-election message should have been ...
"Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine."
"Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can ever imagine."
I'm very tired.
Life I'm very tired. Yesterday, as ever, I worked the election as a poll clerk. There weren't any queues at our station, though the turnout seemed unusually high so we phoned for extra ballot papers (even though ultimately we didn't need them). As ever it was a singularly frustrating experience as I watched democracy happening but without any sense of the outcome. People did comment on being first time voters or the disaffected returning to do their duty which gave me a bit of hope that something different was happening. This time.
And it was. And here we are. The best moment of the day was explaining Bigotgate and electoral arithmetic to a couple of police women who couldn't believe that there could be such a disparity between share of the vote and number of seats won. And so it proved. The worst moment was sitting at 4am, twenty three hours after I'd woken up realising that the situation I'd pessimistically predicted to some people earlier in the week had come true. A hung parliament and Nick Clegg in the horrible position of having to make a deal with the Lib Dems's mortal enemy.
It's horrible. People who didn't listen to what he'd been saying about supporting whoever had the mandate and/or believing the media version of it feel betrayed, not noticing how difficult it must have been to make that speech on the steps of party headquarters. The problem is, if he can't make a deal with the Tories and he does turn to Labour another group of voters will feel just as betrayed because we hate them too -- it's why we vote Liberal Democrat. Nick doesn't have a choice. He's been pushed into this by the British people. For the sake of the country he can't simply walk away, however entertaining that may be to watch.
The upside is that he'll also be in a position to push through some Lib Dem policies that might not otherwise ever be on the table. His four pledges which he repeated ad infinitum right up until Wednesday evening of which I think the most likely will be the pupil premium, the 10k tax break and proportional representation. If we're lucky we may also get cabinet posts. In other words, the Lib Dems will in theory be in an even more powerful position now than they would have been otherwise. So although he's not in power, and will severely piss off some of his supporters, by voting Clegg, we still got Clegg. In some form. Or other.
And it was. And here we are. The best moment of the day was explaining Bigotgate and electoral arithmetic to a couple of police women who couldn't believe that there could be such a disparity between share of the vote and number of seats won. And so it proved. The worst moment was sitting at 4am, twenty three hours after I'd woken up realising that the situation I'd pessimistically predicted to some people earlier in the week had come true. A hung parliament and Nick Clegg in the horrible position of having to make a deal with the Lib Dems's mortal enemy.
It's horrible. People who didn't listen to what he'd been saying about supporting whoever had the mandate and/or believing the media version of it feel betrayed, not noticing how difficult it must have been to make that speech on the steps of party headquarters. The problem is, if he can't make a deal with the Tories and he does turn to Labour another group of voters will feel just as betrayed because we hate them too -- it's why we vote Liberal Democrat. Nick doesn't have a choice. He's been pushed into this by the British people. For the sake of the country he can't simply walk away, however entertaining that may be to watch.
The upside is that he'll also be in a position to push through some Lib Dem policies that might not otherwise ever be on the table. His four pledges which he repeated ad infinitum right up until Wednesday evening of which I think the most likely will be the pupil premium, the 10k tax break and proportional representation. If we're lucky we may also get cabinet posts. In other words, the Lib Dems will in theory be in an even more powerful position now than they would have been otherwise. So although he's not in power, and will severely piss off some of his supporters, by voting Clegg, we still got Clegg. In some form. Or other.
Why you must vote.
Politics I originally posted this five years ago and even with the crazy manic election campaign we've just experienced, it's just as true now as it was then, if not more so:
Dear Disaffected Voter,
There was a survey today with said that only one in three young people will be making the effort to vote on Thursday. The turnout is generally going to be about 60%. My own consistency, Riverside, had the lowest turnout in the whole country. There are many millions of people in the land who just don't see the point in voting.
There'll be some of you who won't be voting because for some reason you simply can't. You recently moved house and didn't have enough to time to get your vote moved to your new house. You'll be on holiday and the whole postal voting thing couldn't be scheduled properly with while you're away. Those and a whole raft of perfectly good reasons. I'm not talking to you.
I'm talking to the rest. You'll be split into two camps. Those who can't be bothered and those who don't see the point. Yes, you. You idiot.
If you're insulted by that, you should be.
The biggest idiots are the ones who can't be bothered. The ones who have the facility to vote, aren't impeded, but simply can't be arsed walking all the way to the polling station, even though there are enough of them that the local will be in the next street. Do you realise you're screwing things up for the rest of us? Here is a list of the knock on effects of you not showing up.
(1) It makes us all look bad. There are certain parts of the world were people don't have the choice of more than one party, for that matter the ability to vote at all. Not naming any names. In some of the these places people have been killed whilst they've fought to get the chance to choose who they want as a leader. By noting voting yourself, you're pissing on their fight because you're devaluing what they're fighting for. You're like Cameron's dad in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Lovely car parked up in the garage being wasted. Take it out for a spin once in a while.
(2) It's not a fair contest. I was watching the Olympics last year, and in one of the races a rank outsider won a gold medal. But he was seriously pissed off -- because the great runners in the sport hadn't been there to contest their title so it was sort of a default win. By not showing your support for a party, whoever wins won't necessarily have won because the country wants them to be there. It'll be because the majority of 60% of the country wants them there. Which isn't the same thing.
(3) It makes you look bad. If you can't be bothered spending twenty minutes of the day going into a room in a school somewhere to put a cross on a slip of paper, a process which has been made as easy as possible now (now that they even print the name of the party on the ballot paper) what frankly are you good for?
Now there are the rest of you who are making a point of not voting. My Father believes that everyone should be forced to vote by law, even if they show up and spoil their ballot paper. Within the current system it's your choice and right not to vote. So there will be a percentage of people who don't vote because they believe it's sending a message that you're unhappy with the political process in this country. There are a couple of flaws to this plan:
(1) Politicians won't give a shit about you. Because you didn't turn up at a polling station, come the day they don't even know you exist. If you don't like the political process the only way to develop it is to engage with politicians and ask for that change. Some of the parties have ideas for reform using systems such a proportional representation which means that every vote is counted.
(2) Your plan only works if no one votes. Like that's going to happen. No matter what you do, someone will be Prime Minister on Friday.
There are some, such as the 66% of students I mentioned earlier, who aren't voting because they say that the manifestos and party policies aren't offering anything to them. What doesn't occur to you is that manifestos are written to interest the various demographics of voters. So if you don't turn up, you're not a voter so why should they try and attract you with tailored policies? So effectively if enough of you people turned up and voted, it'd frighten the shit out of the politicians and they'd have to start listening and developing useful policies so that they can keep you on their side. There were no policies effecting women in manifestos until women got the vote. It's pretty much the same thing. You turn up, so will they.
I know this has been a bit freewheeling. If I'd wanted to I could have found a bunch of statistics and anecdotal evidence to back up some of these things. But I thought I'd go for the simple, direct approach because don't think I've said anything which you don't already know.
I'm just trying to give you a nudge.
Even if you turn up and vote for a man dressed as a banana you'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing when the announcements are made, someone who just wanted to have a bit of fun hasn't lost their deposit.
Just don't waste you vote. Pick a party and go.
And if the one you pick doesn't win, there's always next time....
Stu.
Familiarity
Politics Watching yesterday's events, one image struck me as being terribly familiar. Gordon Brown, head down, clutching his forehead:
Then I remembered ...
... a photograph of Nixon (source unknown) I employed as one of the title bars in the early days of the blog ...
Then I remembered ...
... a photograph of Nixon (source unknown) I employed as one of the title bars in the early days of the blog ...
Gaffs
Politics One of my favourite episodes of The West Wing is The US Poet Laureate. It's set during a presidential campaign and opens with President Bartlet giving short interviews to local tv stations. After one of the interviews, he's exchanging pleasantries with a newscaster and when we think he thinks the mike is off, he says of his opponent, the Bushalike Senator Ritchie, ". . . I think we might be talking about a .22 caliber mind in a .357 magnum world. . . ."
Cue scandal, recriminations, generally a bad week in the campaign with the administration's token Republican, Ainsley Hayes, appearing on as many talk shows as possible in order to try and spin the story back their direction, as Bartlet is confirmed as the elitist his opponents suggest he is. At the close of the episode, press secretary CJ, who's also spent her time cleaning up the mess, questions her President on what really happened:
Cue scandal, recriminations, generally a bad week in the campaign with the administration's token Republican, Ainsley Hayes, appearing on as many talk shows as possible in order to try and spin the story back their direction, as Bartlet is confirmed as the elitist his opponents suggest he is. At the close of the episode, press secretary CJ, who's also spent her time cleaning up the mess, questions her President on what really happened:
BARTLETIn other words, Bartlet made a deliberate gaff so that one of the subjects which wouldn't necessarily have entered the news cycle, entered the news cycle. If only politicians in the real world were this cunning.
C.J.?
She heads back towards him.
C.J.
Yes, sir?
BARTLET
I've been meaning to tell you, you've done really well this week with the open-mike thing.
C.J.
Thank you.
He slips on his glasses and looks up at her.
BARTLET
Didn't turn out too bad.
C.J.
No sir, it didn't turn out too bad at all. In fact, the whole country's talking about whether Ritchie's smart enough to be President. And you didn't take hit, 'cause it was an accident. You know, it occurs to me that even your choice of language was interesting. "A .22 caliber mind, in a .357 magnum world." That's unusual for you, a gun metaphor.
Bartlet doesn't look up, seeming to be engrossed in whatever he's reading.
C.J. [cont]
Toby mentioned to me that when each interview was over, all the interviewers wanted to talk to you about was Ritchie, and you took a pass each time. Until Philadelphia.
Now Bartlet slowly looks up at her.
C.J. [cont]
Mr. President, is it possible you saw that the green light was on?
He slips the glasses off and gives her an unreadable look.
ANNOUNCER [VO]
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
C.J. smiles.
C.J.
That was Old School.
He turns back to look at her.
C.J.
Go knock 'em dead.
Bartlet walks away from her towards the microphones as cameras flash. He reaches the bank of microphones, and nods to his audience.
Politics The full transcript of Thursday's debate is online including Clegg's rousing closing speech which may have had more of an impact on the polls if Sky hadn't kept cutting away to the audience all of the way through (having given Cameron the luxury of a slow push-in) and the pollsters hadn't begun gathering their data in the middle:
What I have tried to do tonight is to show if we do things differently, we can be a force for good in the world. We can lead, we can shape the world around us, not complain about the world around us.Cue The West Wing music and CJ wiping back the tears.
We have talked about a number of things this evening. We've talked about Europe, Afghanistan, climate change, the Pope. We've talked about things closer to home as well, immigration, MPs' expenses, pensions.
I believe, on all those things, all those issues, we can act differently.
There's still some way to go before this election is decided, but I hope that whether you're going to vote in the next few days by post, or make up your mind in the ballot box on May 6th, you agree with me that something really exciting is beginning to happen.
People are beginning to believe, beginning to hope that we can do something different this time. Of course there are people who will try to block change, of course there are people who are spreading fear to stop the change you want.
I think they're wrong. I think if we do things differently, if we stand up for the values that have made our country great, then we can be proud again, proud of greater fairness here at home, and proud also, of standing up for the things we believe in, in the world.
We don't simply need to choose from the old choices of the past, we don't need to repeat the mistakes of the past. Don't let anyone tell you this time it
can't be different.
It can.
Politics Having had a bit of a Sam Seaborn kind of a day in relation to smears and polls, I was pleased to have a West Wing moment in the back of the taxi home:
Me: Um, do mind if I ask you a question?
Driver: Yes?
Me: Who do you think you'll be voting for?
Driver: Well, I've always voted Labour before but I quite like the Liberal Democrats. That Nick Clegg talks a lot of sense.
Me: [grins]
And W. Snuffy Walden's music floats through the air as I look out of the window as the taxi dodges through the streets towards home.
It's all about tonight (ish).
Me: Um, do mind if I ask you a question?
Driver: Yes?
Me: Who do you think you'll be voting for?
Driver: Well, I've always voted Labour before but I quite like the Liberal Democrats. That Nick Clegg talks a lot of sense.
Me: [grins]
And W. Snuffy Walden's music floats through the air as I look out of the window as the taxi dodges through the streets towards home.
It's all about tonight (ish).
The Swingometer
Politics The BBC Archive has posted material related to the election night swingometer with plenty of clips of past glories.
My favourite is this discourse from a couple of weeks before my birth in 1974 in which Sue Lawley looking like a sexy young Doctor Who companion from the period, casually, one hand in her pocket, explains the results of the overnight poll.
Full clip is here and you can't tell me something hasn't been lost in the wizbit pacing of the new news. Especially the final moment and the smirk. Now it's Jeremy Vine in a holodeck waving his arms around.
Another draw is the list of candidate names which demonstrate that all of the fiction figures that turn up on comedy series from the Python to The Day Today, all have their roots in fact.
I've listed them after the jump because they do sound like the stuff of another era and I really can't believe that these people existed. Especially Margaret Thatcher.
My favourite is this discourse from a couple of weeks before my birth in 1974 in which Sue Lawley looking like a sexy young Doctor Who companion from the period, casually, one hand in her pocket, explains the results of the overnight poll.
Full clip is here and you can't tell me something hasn't been lost in the wizbit pacing of the new news. Especially the final moment and the smirk. Now it's Jeremy Vine in a holodeck waving his arms around.
Another draw is the list of candidate names which demonstrate that all of the fiction figures that turn up on comedy series from the Python to The Day Today, all have their roots in fact.
I've listed them after the jump because they do sound like the stuff of another era and I really can't believe that these people existed. Especially Margaret Thatcher.
The Surge.
Politics Last night, I nearly burst into tears after seeing some numbers. No, it wasn’t the ratings given by visitors to Gallifrey Base for the Doctor Who episode, though fans really don’t know when they’ve been born when they’re giving Spitfires vs. Daleks five on ten and complaining about the fact that the technology seemed to have been knocked together in five minutes by one of their agents gone rogue.
No, my near show shower was after seeing the Liberal Democrats ahead of two other parties in the Mail on Sunday poll. A YouGov poll tonight as reported by UK Polling Report offers similar numbers LDEM 33%(+4), CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3). I knew that Nick Clegg’s performance had been good, but I didn’t really suspect that they’d be transferred into these numbers.
Mad keen on politics, I’ve been following the election since its been called watching Newsnight on consecutive evenings, listening intently to the Today programme and PM and reading my paper of choice. As I joked here, having already decided who I was going to vote for this largely consisted of half listening to the arguments then insulting the people on Twitter. #ge2010.
Until Thursday there was a quite resignation about being a lifelong Lib Dem supporter and knowing that our polling record would slip in and out of 20% until the election when we would stunningly under-perform, as usual winning some seats but losing just as many others meaning we’d end up back at square one, our only hope this time for a hung parliament and a bit of more influence. Hence my emotion response to some numbers.
As ever until Thursday, the Lib Dems where considered by the media as the also rans. The election meant some extra focus here and there, but though the Labservative manifestos appeared as headlines in the papers Monday to Thursday, the Lib Dems were reduced to a byline or nestling somewhere in the middle pages, our message lost within the squabbling over the content of the parties that seemed most likely to form the next government.
Have I Got News For You the week before the debate was making the usual jokes about the Lib Dems being forgettable and not being able to make up their mind about anything – jokes which were repeated the following week in the episode which ran opposite the leadership debate and which look slightly anachronistic now (slightly?). There was an element of motion going to Paxman’s interviews with Clegg and then Cable; they both acquitted themselves well, but with his cold, Paxo didn’t seem to be trying.
When I wrote my review of the leadership debate with my effusive praise of Clegg, it was still with the slight expectation that since only about a quarter of the country would be watching and since in the days after the chancellor’s debate which Cable won hands down too the polling numbers stayed the same, I expected that we might pick up a couple of points, but people would still keep to their usual expectation that a Lib Dem vote was a wasted vote and that they’d stick with one of the two main parties.
You know the narrative from there. The wacky polls on Friday with massive numbers which turned out to be the product of voters who’d actually watched the debates and knew they were going to be asked. Then into yesterday polls from typical samples began to show and the Lib Dem numbers were higher but not steller, which it then transpired were from surveys taken before the debate and showed a manifesto surge. Now the real post debate numbers are appearing and well, we know the story of that:
LDEM 33%(+4), CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3)
Liberal numbers which haven’t been this high for decades, Labour numbers lower than Michael Foot, the Tories holding steady. If this is just a flash in the pan, if by the end of the next week the hype will have died down and the Lib Dems have returned to their old stomping ground of 20% at least we have this moment to point to and show that we can be relevant.
Except, and this is why, quite frankly I’m brainfried, people with an opinion are suggesting that this may not be a flash in the pan, that these numbers may be sustainable. Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report thinks (and he isn't the only one) that they could well be if the “wasted vote” people switch back to their natural opinion and I’d add if the non-voters in a similar category make the time.
I’m under no illusions about this. The chances of the Lib Dems winning the election are slim unless they can start picking off the Labservative vote in greater numbers. Most projections suggest that the support is too diffuse and there aren’t enough true marginals to be relevant. This would have to be 1997 scenario with shell-shocked young Lib Dems picking off cabinet ministers and us asking each other the next morning if we were up for Milliband.
Both of the other two parties (it feels wrong to call them the “main parties right now) will be heading after the Lib Dems with greater force. We can already see the new Conservative strategy at work with there persistent suggestions that voters will change their tune when they scrutinise the “eccentric policies” going on to purposefully misrepresent those policies (see Bob Ainsworth fudging Trident yesterday morning).
Plus there’s two more leadership debates and Cameron and Brown are bound to be sharper having been rocked out of their complacency. The next, on Foreign Affairs will be a real test for Clegg, though his anti-war credentials and general internationalism (what’s the word for someone who speaks five languages?) may stand him in good stead.
And neither of the other leads will want to come across as bullies, the conundrum which faced John McCain and look what happened to him. I don’t think Gordon will be agreeing with Nick as much and David will cut back on the anecdotes but since those seemed to be the well honed strategies, both may come across as nervous as they try desperately not to fall back into those old modes and risk looking like fools.
The only problem may be that it’s on Sky News which, apart from the potential for bias in the moderation, means that many people will rely on clips (despite the reach of digital television people can’t seem to find the top of the dial). If he makes any major gaffs they’ll be repeated over and over and over again. It just depends on the narrative and how fair the media wants to be.
But as we’ve seen by the sudden appearance of Nick on the cover of newspapers (unthinkable before Thursday), there’s a buzz around him of the kind that sells newspapers or makes people visit websites; the last thing they may want to do is piss off their potential readership by suggesting their new golden boy is no good, a flash in the pan. We’re uncharted territory now.
So that could be my natural pessimism. For the electoral polling map to change overnight like this feels unprecedented and like 1997 there is something in the air. Search for Clegg or “Lib Dems” on Twitter and watch the general outpouring of good will; if that is being replicated in the real world, and the polls suggest it is, anything could happen.
Anything is possible.
Cue late career, but not Deborah yet, Debbie Gibson:
Yes, indeed.
No, my near show shower was after seeing the Liberal Democrats ahead of two other parties in the Mail on Sunday poll. A YouGov poll tonight as reported by UK Polling Report offers similar numbers LDEM 33%(+4), CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3). I knew that Nick Clegg’s performance had been good, but I didn’t really suspect that they’d be transferred into these numbers.
Mad keen on politics, I’ve been following the election since its been called watching Newsnight on consecutive evenings, listening intently to the Today programme and PM and reading my paper of choice. As I joked here, having already decided who I was going to vote for this largely consisted of half listening to the arguments then insulting the people on Twitter. #ge2010.
Until Thursday there was a quite resignation about being a lifelong Lib Dem supporter and knowing that our polling record would slip in and out of 20% until the election when we would stunningly under-perform, as usual winning some seats but losing just as many others meaning we’d end up back at square one, our only hope this time for a hung parliament and a bit of more influence. Hence my emotion response to some numbers.
As ever until Thursday, the Lib Dems where considered by the media as the also rans. The election meant some extra focus here and there, but though the Labservative manifestos appeared as headlines in the papers Monday to Thursday, the Lib Dems were reduced to a byline or nestling somewhere in the middle pages, our message lost within the squabbling over the content of the parties that seemed most likely to form the next government.
Have I Got News For You the week before the debate was making the usual jokes about the Lib Dems being forgettable and not being able to make up their mind about anything – jokes which were repeated the following week in the episode which ran opposite the leadership debate and which look slightly anachronistic now (slightly?). There was an element of motion going to Paxman’s interviews with Clegg and then Cable; they both acquitted themselves well, but with his cold, Paxo didn’t seem to be trying.
When I wrote my review of the leadership debate with my effusive praise of Clegg, it was still with the slight expectation that since only about a quarter of the country would be watching and since in the days after the chancellor’s debate which Cable won hands down too the polling numbers stayed the same, I expected that we might pick up a couple of points, but people would still keep to their usual expectation that a Lib Dem vote was a wasted vote and that they’d stick with one of the two main parties.
You know the narrative from there. The wacky polls on Friday with massive numbers which turned out to be the product of voters who’d actually watched the debates and knew they were going to be asked. Then into yesterday polls from typical samples began to show and the Lib Dem numbers were higher but not steller, which it then transpired were from surveys taken before the debate and showed a manifesto surge. Now the real post debate numbers are appearing and well, we know the story of that:
LDEM 33%(+4), CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3)
Liberal numbers which haven’t been this high for decades, Labour numbers lower than Michael Foot, the Tories holding steady. If this is just a flash in the pan, if by the end of the next week the hype will have died down and the Lib Dems have returned to their old stomping ground of 20% at least we have this moment to point to and show that we can be relevant.
Except, and this is why, quite frankly I’m brainfried, people with an opinion are suggesting that this may not be a flash in the pan, that these numbers may be sustainable. Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report thinks (and he isn't the only one) that they could well be if the “wasted vote” people switch back to their natural opinion and I’d add if the non-voters in a similar category make the time.
I’m under no illusions about this. The chances of the Lib Dems winning the election are slim unless they can start picking off the Labservative vote in greater numbers. Most projections suggest that the support is too diffuse and there aren’t enough true marginals to be relevant. This would have to be 1997 scenario with shell-shocked young Lib Dems picking off cabinet ministers and us asking each other the next morning if we were up for Milliband.
Both of the other two parties (it feels wrong to call them the “main parties right now) will be heading after the Lib Dems with greater force. We can already see the new Conservative strategy at work with there persistent suggestions that voters will change their tune when they scrutinise the “eccentric policies” going on to purposefully misrepresent those policies (see Bob Ainsworth fudging Trident yesterday morning).
Plus there’s two more leadership debates and Cameron and Brown are bound to be sharper having been rocked out of their complacency. The next, on Foreign Affairs will be a real test for Clegg, though his anti-war credentials and general internationalism (what’s the word for someone who speaks five languages?) may stand him in good stead.
And neither of the other leads will want to come across as bullies, the conundrum which faced John McCain and look what happened to him. I don’t think Gordon will be agreeing with Nick as much and David will cut back on the anecdotes but since those seemed to be the well honed strategies, both may come across as nervous as they try desperately not to fall back into those old modes and risk looking like fools.
The only problem may be that it’s on Sky News which, apart from the potential for bias in the moderation, means that many people will rely on clips (despite the reach of digital television people can’t seem to find the top of the dial). If he makes any major gaffs they’ll be repeated over and over and over again. It just depends on the narrative and how fair the media wants to be.
But as we’ve seen by the sudden appearance of Nick on the cover of newspapers (unthinkable before Thursday), there’s a buzz around him of the kind that sells newspapers or makes people visit websites; the last thing they may want to do is piss off their potential readership by suggesting their new golden boy is no good, a flash in the pan. We’re uncharted territory now.
So that could be my natural pessimism. For the electoral polling map to change overnight like this feels unprecedented and like 1997 there is something in the air. Search for Clegg or “Lib Dems” on Twitter and watch the general outpouring of good will; if that is being replicated in the real world, and the polls suggest it is, anything could happen.
Anything is possible.
Cue late career, but not Deborah yet, Debbie Gibson:
Yes, indeed.
First TV Debate.
Politics For the benefit of international readers, tonight offered something of a historic moment for UK politics with the first live television debate between the three party leaders which is why some names that have no relevance to you will have been trending on twitter (it's us getting our own back for Justin Bieber). In televisual terms, ITV's presentation of the first debate was bargain basement; the set looked like it last saw service during Telethon '90 and the compare/moderator Alistair Stewart seemed more nervous and snippy than the party leaders themselves, randomly shouting out their surnames in a bizarre attempt to recreate the mood of University Challenge.
The majority of first reaction polls (in other words the ones from television networks without vested interests) suggest Nick Clegg won and he really did. Far from being the add-on many feared he often dominated exchanges and as Cameron offered anecdotes but little in the way of policy detail and Brown spent most of his time either agreeing with Clegg or asking for the chance to put right what he let go wrong. In his opening statement, Clegg said that he wanted to demonstrate that he offered an alternative to the old politics and he continued with that throughout time and again, noting that the more the other two argued, the more they sounded like they were saying the same thing over and over again.
Nick genuinely laughing when Gordon agreed with him once again. Addressing one questioner he then referred to another from earlier on in the debate working in her location (Blackburn -- see -- I remember it too now). But in general he just seemed more confident and got his points across more clearly. He also repeated them often, understanding that people may be tuning in and out and that they will remember policies best if they hear them over and over. That didn't happen with the other two who were too busy squabbling with each other over details of policy and points scoring rather than addressing the audience both in the studio and at home. If Nick Clegg's performance tonight doesn't increase the Liberal Democtrat's standing in the polls, nothing will.
The majority of first reaction polls (in other words the ones from television networks without vested interests) suggest Nick Clegg won and he really did. Far from being the add-on many feared he often dominated exchanges and as Cameron offered anecdotes but little in the way of policy detail and Brown spent most of his time either agreeing with Clegg or asking for the chance to put right what he let go wrong. In his opening statement, Clegg said that he wanted to demonstrate that he offered an alternative to the old politics and he continued with that throughout time and again, noting that the more the other two argued, the more they sounded like they were saying the same thing over and over again.
Nick genuinely laughing when Gordon agreed with him once again. Addressing one questioner he then referred to another from earlier on in the debate working in her location (Blackburn -- see -- I remember it too now). But in general he just seemed more confident and got his points across more clearly. He also repeated them often, understanding that people may be tuning in and out and that they will remember policies best if they hear them over and over. That didn't happen with the other two who were too busy squabbling with each other over details of policy and points scoring rather than addressing the audience both in the studio and at home. If Nick Clegg's performance tonight doesn't increase the Liberal Democtrat's standing in the polls, nothing will.
General Election called.
Politics Since I've already decided who I'm voting for (expect formal endorsement in due course), the next four weeks of news television and radio, especially the Today programme, will essentially look and sound like this to me:
"This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!"
"No it isn't!"
"Oh look, this is futile!"
"This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!"
"No it isn't!"
"Oh look, this is futile!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)