political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Friday, October 12, 2007
Telegraph Column: Calm Down Dears, It's Only a Fortnight
Click HERE for my latest Telegraph column, which talks about the Tories needing a reality check and the need to get the tone right.
Your main point is spot on, Iain - a swallow does not a summer (or the next X months til the general election) make.
One thing that is clear (and noted by Mike Smithson over at PoliticalBetting.com recently) is the volatility of the electorate. Thus the relative fortunes of Labour v Conservative, Brown v Cameron are occilating up & down faster than a rocket-powered yoyo.
Interesting example of this occurred just this past Wednesday in ONTARIO where the canuck Conservatives, led (am not making this up) by John Tory managed to lose a provincial general election they should have own.
Voters were not all that impressed by Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty (which would be a wonderful name for a leperachaun or a brand of beef stew) because as soon as the Ontario Grits defeated the Tories in the 2003 election on a no new taxes pledge, they almost immediately RAISED taxes on health care.
So things appeared a wee bit challenging for the Liberal Party going into the 2007 election. Until John Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of possible victory . . . by advocating public funding for religious schools.
Now this turned out to be very unpopular with large swaths of the electorate (including many Conservatives). Even worse, the media latched on to the controversy and made the religious schools issue the focus of the entire election. Result: a 2nd majority government for McGuinty.
Iain, do disgree with you on one point. To laud the Cheney White House as a model of effective cooperation with the GOP in Congress is LUDICROUS.
FOR EXAMPLE note that W has just vetoed legislation to expand federally-funded health care coverage (SCHIP program) to include more CHILDREN on the grounds that the cost is "excessive" (this from an administration that has turned a federal surplus into a ballooning deficit by pouring billions into the Iraq rathole). Please note that this action (only Bush's 4th veto in seven years) has put a great big bullseye on the fat ass of every Republican Congressman from an even half-way marginal district who dares to uphold the veto.
Cause come Election Day 2008, us Democrats are going to be reminding voters from coast-to-coast that these SOBs voted to deny basic health care to little kids . . . while they themselves have a gold-plated health plan paid for the taxpayers . . . including of course the parents of these same children.
Talk about yer compassionate conservatism. That's as big (and black) a joke as "mission accomplished".
Iain, you come across so much better in print than you do on TV! As a neutral/centre-left-ish type, I'm delighted the Tories now have the bit between the teeth - it makes for good debate. Despite Osborne's successful tax-cut speech, I still believe the next General election will be lost by a bad campaign, rather than won by a good one (whichever party wins), and while I totally agree that the tone is very important, the policies are too. I'm looking forward to seeing if the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie are going to start calling on Cameron to go for broke on the policies, and fear the worst for him if he agrees. sea shanty, your piece on the US health service interests me - Have you seen Iain's blog on the hospital crisis over here? Healthcare is such an emotive issue, it will always feature as a major driver in an election here, and will help cameron IF he sticks to his new "free at the point of need" policy
--believe the volatility of the electorate in these troubled times (though are there any other kind?) means that the conduct of the next campaign (good, bad, ugly or indifferent) by Labour, Conservatives & Liberal Democrats will have a greater-than-normal impact; this is part of the message of the Ontario Tory meltdown.
--you are absolutely correct, health care is an extremely emotional issue. Seems what Cameron is attempting to do is to turn a traditionally strong issue for Labour into a Tory positive; this is similar to what New Labour was able to do on the tax issue for the 1997 general election.
--disagree somewhat with you assessment of Iain's television performance. Yes, his lack of cut & thrust, slash & dash is not suitable for hard-hitting debate, of the kind that you and many, many others appreciate. On the other hand, Iain's low-key, polite, respectful but critical approach is appreciated by me and many, many others who are increasingly turned off by man-bites-dog-and-chews-his-butt-off school of journalism. Perhaps what Iain should do, is wait for an appropriate moment and really lower the boom on someone who royally deserves it (for example, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter) just to show that there is steel beneath the velvet.
Sea Shanty Irish, you are too kind about my points (they're mostly re-hashed from UKPollingreport !), but you have missed my first point - I was complimenting Iain's writing, not criticising his TV performance, which (in my biased view) put Kelvin MacKenzie (butt-chewing Brit hack) in the shade. But I was doing so in a very British, back-handed kind of way! Looking forward to more observations of politics on your side of the pond
5 comments:
Your main point is spot on, Iain - a swallow does not a summer (or the next X months til the general election) make.
One thing that is clear (and noted by Mike Smithson over at PoliticalBetting.com recently) is the volatility of the electorate. Thus the relative fortunes of Labour v Conservative, Brown v Cameron are occilating up & down faster than a rocket-powered yoyo.
Interesting example of this occurred just this past Wednesday in ONTARIO where the canuck Conservatives, led (am not making this up) by John Tory managed to lose a provincial general election they should have own.
Voters were not all that impressed by Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty (which would be a wonderful name for a leperachaun or a brand of beef stew) because as soon as the Ontario Grits defeated the Tories in the 2003 election on a no new taxes pledge, they almost immediately RAISED taxes on health care.
So things appeared a wee bit challenging for the Liberal Party going into the 2007 election. Until John Tory snatched defeat from the jaws of possible victory . . . by advocating public funding for religious schools.
Now this turned out to be very unpopular with large swaths of the electorate (including many Conservatives). Even worse, the media latched on to the controversy and made the religious schools issue the focus of the entire election. Result: a 2nd majority government for McGuinty.
Iain, do disgree with you on one point. To laud the Cheney White House as a model of effective cooperation with the GOP in Congress is LUDICROUS.
FOR EXAMPLE note that W has just vetoed legislation to expand federally-funded health care coverage (SCHIP program) to include more CHILDREN on the grounds that the cost is "excessive" (this from an administration that has turned a federal surplus into a ballooning deficit by pouring billions into the Iraq rathole). Please note that this action (only Bush's 4th veto in seven years) has put a great big bullseye on the fat ass of every Republican Congressman from an even half-way marginal district who dares to uphold the veto.
Cause come Election Day 2008, us Democrats are going to be reminding voters from coast-to-coast that these SOBs voted to deny basic health care to little kids . . . while they themselves have a gold-plated health plan paid for the taxpayers . . . including of course the parents of these same children.
Talk about yer compassionate conservatism. That's as big (and black) a joke as "mission accomplished".
Iain, you come across so much better in print than you do on TV!
As a neutral/centre-left-ish type, I'm delighted the Tories now have the bit between the teeth - it makes for good debate. Despite Osborne's successful tax-cut speech, I still believe the next General election will be lost by a bad campaign, rather than won by a good one (whichever party wins), and while I totally agree that the tone is very important, the policies are too. I'm looking forward to seeing if the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie are going to start calling on Cameron to go for broke on the policies, and fear the worst for him if he agrees.
sea shanty, your piece on the US health service interests me - Have you seen Iain's blog on the hospital crisis over here? Healthcare is such an emotive issue, it will always feature as a major driver in an election here, and will help cameron IF he sticks to his new "free at the point of need" policy
No doubt if Dangerous Dave ever wants your advice, he will ask for it.
JT, you make several excellent points:
--believe the volatility of the electorate in these troubled times (though are there any other kind?) means that the conduct of the next campaign (good, bad, ugly or indifferent) by Labour, Conservatives & Liberal Democrats will have a greater-than-normal impact; this is part of the message of the Ontario Tory meltdown.
--you are absolutely correct, health care is an extremely emotional issue. Seems what Cameron is attempting to do is to turn a traditionally strong issue for Labour into a Tory positive; this is similar to what New Labour was able to do on the tax issue for the 1997 general election.
--disagree somewhat with you assessment of Iain's television performance. Yes, his lack of cut & thrust, slash & dash is not suitable for hard-hitting debate, of the kind that you and many, many others appreciate. On the other hand, Iain's low-key, polite, respectful but critical approach is appreciated by me and many, many others who are increasingly turned off by man-bites-dog-and-chews-his-butt-off school of journalism. Perhaps what Iain should do, is wait for an appropriate moment and really lower the boom on someone who royally deserves it (for example, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter) just to show that there is steel beneath the velvet.
Sea Shanty Irish, you are too kind about my points (they're mostly re-hashed from UKPollingreport !), but you have missed my first point - I was complimenting Iain's writing, not criticising his TV performance, which (in my biased view) put Kelvin MacKenzie (butt-chewing Brit hack) in the shade.
But I was doing so in a very British, back-handed kind of way!
Looking forward to more observations of politics on your side of the pond
Post a Comment