The point I'm making is that Cameron so far hasn't spelt out what his agenda is. It might be tactical? it might also be that he doesn't have one?. Tony Blair introduced this kind of politics when he ran a campaign based on slightly amorphic things such as "values", "aspirations", "visions" and "things can only get better". Essentially you're running off a nebulous platform which makes attacking the detail very difficult. Attacking something that has identifible shape and form is much easier than attacking what is tantamount to globule of ever changing sentiment. What you hope to do is combine this lack of substance with a fresh face and televisual smile, and hope to plug into a populist sentiment. Barrack Obama is doing exactly the same with his "it's time for change" agenda. David Cameron is no different in that regard.
You might reflect too, that the true architect of the whole 'new Labour project', was actually Margaret Thatcher, and not messers Gould, Mandelson, Brown, Blair, or Campbell. To some extent imitation of a winning formula is the finest compliment you can pay it. It's ironic therefore that at a time when the Tories are anxious to distance themselves from the Thatcher era, Brown in one of his first steps as PM invited her to Downing Street, in some desperate attempt to exploit her image. Does he not realise that she's bad currency?
Thatcher (egged on by Keith Joseph and a few others) to no small extent corrupted the Tory party and turned it into a devisive moneterist party with all the attendent injustices that went with it. In truth the Conservative party doesn't actually have quite that kind of tradition, as there was some semblence of a caring side to it once upon a time that wasn't based on greed, and the systematic creation and penalisation of geo-political regions. Indeed, under Harold McMillian I seem to think the Tories were the majority party in Scotland. It's an observation my local Councillor was condeming her for the other day, as he feels she went along way towards making the party unelectable to a whole generation of people, and actually resents what she's done to them. Two conservative party chairman are on record somewhere as variously acknowledging this.
"No one with a conscience votes Conservative" - N Tebbit
(the tory party are) "the nasty party" - T. May
Cameron needs to present a more charismatic alternative as it's no longer acceptable to penalise minorities and single out and punish certain socio-economic groups in the pursuit of satisfying the electoral arithmatic necessary to buy the C2 vote in Basildon. To do this though he's simply apeing the Blair model. To some extent Brown was penalising the lower income groups with the 10p band, when pursuing the C1 and B vote which is so crucial to his prospects. (for the first time in the last 10 years my pay packet increased this month as a result of a budget :laughing: - don't see that lasting beyond November )
Unless Gordon Brown can pull Cameron into an argument about substance then Labour look destined to lose now. Johnson is another example of this as he's relied on personality rather than ideas (and to no small extent the "anyone but Livingstone" vote). When Johnson did try and engage in detail he looked horribly exposed, and if I were handling him, I'd have done the same, as he all too quickly demonstrated a very limited grasp of his brief and was notably poor on detail.
I actually think you can trace the whole thing collpase in Labour's prospects to last years party conference season and some pretty desperate and unconvincing spouting by the Tories which I doubt even they believed themselves. Brown made one serious mistake during that week, which at the time might have been cast into the file marked 'bad day at the office'. As it happened it set in train a chain of events, which as so often occurs, was magnified out of all proportion, and from which Labour has never recovered in the polls since. Leaving the specifics of the gaf apart, what it actually allowed the Tories to start doing is also very interesting, and its a tactic I've used myself when involved with adversarial conflict situations, and it does have military applications too.
Conventional thinking is that you probe away at weaknesses and try and exploit these. There is an alternative course of action, which is a bit desperate but can be devastating if delivered unexpectedly, at the right time, and swiftly. Far from attacking the point of weakness, what you do instead is attack at the point of perceived strength, and seek to deliver a debilitating or even knock out blow. After having built up a reputation as the 'Iron Chancellor' etc The one thing they shouldn't have been able to do, was portray Brown as a "ditherer". It was gamble, but it tells me that the much vaunted Labour spin machine has broken down. Similarly, Brown had hitherto (and for the first time in its history) given Labour a record for economic management (they were regularly out scoring the Tories in this area when voters were asked which party they trusted the most to handle various issues). Attacking Brown on the economy wasn't necessarily the most obvious thing to do, but it now looks like a trump card. Again, I'm left wondering where the spin machine has gone? It should be kicking in, with excuses explaining away the world economy, trotting out the unparalelled record of economic growth, blaming American investments etc and then finally saying something to effect of 'look things are going to get rocky for a year or two. Who would you rather trust to take you through these choppy water? The Chancellor whose given you 10 years of economic stability and growth? Or a light weight smiley face from the Bullingdon club with no experience? Even the ten percent tax band could have been played out better if it had been linked to tax credits and minimum wage legislation.
Brown came into office promising to move away from spin and concentrate on issues and substance, sensing perhaps that the public were growing tired of it. Right now he's a victim of this move, and Cameron is essentially using the same tactics against him, that Blair slaughtered Major, Howard, Hague and Duncan-Smith with. Having said that, commentators talk about a 'good election to lose' this one looks like being just that.
You might reflect too, that the true architect of the whole 'new Labour project', was actually Margaret Thatcher, and not messers Gould, Mandelson, Brown, Blair, or Campbell. To some extent imitation of a winning formula is the finest compliment you can pay it. It's ironic therefore that at a time when the Tories are anxious to distance themselves from the Thatcher era, Brown in one of his first steps as PM invited her to Downing Street, in some desperate attempt to exploit her image. Does he not realise that she's bad currency?
Thatcher (egged on by Keith Joseph and a few others) to no small extent corrupted the Tory party and turned it into a devisive moneterist party with all the attendent injustices that went with it. In truth the Conservative party doesn't actually have quite that kind of tradition, as there was some semblence of a caring side to it once upon a time that wasn't based on greed, and the systematic creation and penalisation of geo-political regions. Indeed, under Harold McMillian I seem to think the Tories were the majority party in Scotland. It's an observation my local Councillor was condeming her for the other day, as he feels she went along way towards making the party unelectable to a whole generation of people, and actually resents what she's done to them. Two conservative party chairman are on record somewhere as variously acknowledging this.
"No one with a conscience votes Conservative" - N Tebbit
(the tory party are) "the nasty party" - T. May
Cameron needs to present a more charismatic alternative as it's no longer acceptable to penalise minorities and single out and punish certain socio-economic groups in the pursuit of satisfying the electoral arithmatic necessary to buy the C2 vote in Basildon. To do this though he's simply apeing the Blair model. To some extent Brown was penalising the lower income groups with the 10p band, when pursuing the C1 and B vote which is so crucial to his prospects. (for the first time in the last 10 years my pay packet increased this month as a result of a budget :laughing: - don't see that lasting beyond November )
Unless Gordon Brown can pull Cameron into an argument about substance then Labour look destined to lose now. Johnson is another example of this as he's relied on personality rather than ideas (and to no small extent the "anyone but Livingstone" vote). When Johnson did try and engage in detail he looked horribly exposed, and if I were handling him, I'd have done the same, as he all too quickly demonstrated a very limited grasp of his brief and was notably poor on detail.
I actually think you can trace the whole thing collpase in Labour's prospects to last years party conference season and some pretty desperate and unconvincing spouting by the Tories which I doubt even they believed themselves. Brown made one serious mistake during that week, which at the time might have been cast into the file marked 'bad day at the office'. As it happened it set in train a chain of events, which as so often occurs, was magnified out of all proportion, and from which Labour has never recovered in the polls since. Leaving the specifics of the gaf apart, what it actually allowed the Tories to start doing is also very interesting, and its a tactic I've used myself when involved with adversarial conflict situations, and it does have military applications too.
Conventional thinking is that you probe away at weaknesses and try and exploit these. There is an alternative course of action, which is a bit desperate but can be devastating if delivered unexpectedly, at the right time, and swiftly. Far from attacking the point of weakness, what you do instead is attack at the point of perceived strength, and seek to deliver a debilitating or even knock out blow. After having built up a reputation as the 'Iron Chancellor' etc The one thing they shouldn't have been able to do, was portray Brown as a "ditherer". It was gamble, but it tells me that the much vaunted Labour spin machine has broken down. Similarly, Brown had hitherto (and for the first time in its history) given Labour a record for economic management (they were regularly out scoring the Tories in this area when voters were asked which party they trusted the most to handle various issues). Attacking Brown on the economy wasn't necessarily the most obvious thing to do, but it now looks like a trump card. Again, I'm left wondering where the spin machine has gone? It should be kicking in, with excuses explaining away the world economy, trotting out the unparalelled record of economic growth, blaming American investments etc and then finally saying something to effect of 'look things are going to get rocky for a year or two. Who would you rather trust to take you through these choppy water? The Chancellor whose given you 10 years of economic stability and growth? Or a light weight smiley face from the Bullingdon club with no experience? Even the ten percent tax band could have been played out better if it had been linked to tax credits and minimum wage legislation.
Brown came into office promising to move away from spin and concentrate on issues and substance, sensing perhaps that the public were growing tired of it. Right now he's a victim of this move, and Cameron is essentially using the same tactics against him, that Blair slaughtered Major, Howard, Hague and Duncan-Smith with. Having said that, commentators talk about a 'good election to lose' this one looks like being just that.
Personally i'm looking forward to seeing Cameron on the world stage and how he gets on with being a conservative.
