Sunday, December 28, 2008

2008 Awards Poll: Political Communication

Communicator of the Year

1. David Cameron 31%
2. Vince Cable 22%
3. Shami Chakrabarti 14%

Campaigner of the Year

1. David Davis 30%
2. Iain Duncan Smith 27%
3. Shami Chakrabarti 14%

Speech of the Year

1. George Osborne's PBR reply 25%
2. Obama's acceptance speech 18%
3. Diane Abbott on 42 days 12%

Pressure Group of the Year

1. Taxpayers' Alliance 28%
2. NO2ID 21%
3. Liberty 18%

Think Tank of the Year

1. Adam Smith Institute 22%
2. Centre for Social Justice 17%
3. Policy Exchange 16%

*1,380 people voted between December 19 & 26th

1 comment:

strapworld said...

Iain, I am sure most will have read David Cameron's limp, lank and lame article in the telegraph.

But have many seen one of the comments on the telegraph on line blog?

Dr Jonathan Wilson Esher Surrey
on December 28, 2008
at 09:17 AM


It pains me to write this but you still do not get it.

Don't misunderstand me - you have pointed out the irresponsible borrowing of Mr. Brown, his lack of fiscal prudence and his barefaced deceitfulness. These are facts that the electorate have now well understood.

What they are yearning to hear from you is something that goes much further than the obvious.

But what do they hear from you? Simply the repeated phrases 'responsible government' and 'responsible business' Only an accountant would build an election platform on the word 'responsible'

Being responsible merely allows you to be in the race, it certainly will not win the race for you.

But it is worse than that. You do not go on and truly define what you mean by responsible government. You do mention fiscal responsibility as a dimension of responsible government and chasing down the bad guys in corporate UK.

But David do you really believe that these issues are election winners? Again they allow you to be in the race, but of themselves they will not win you the race.

No David, the electorate wants to hear you take up the clarion call of the freedom of the individual as against the size and oppression of the State. But this is where it becomes increasingly obvious that you do not 'get it' What is the evidence/? The evidence is that there is no evidence in your article that you see the State as Labour has constructed it as the essence of the problem. You do not seriously attack the size of the State or go on to defining the role of the State and thereby scope out the magnitude of the economic waste currently being caused by the State.

The chilling conclusion that one is left with is that you endorse big government! maybe a little smaller than Labour would have it but not by much! which still leaves it as the elephant in the room.

And yet standing up for individual freedom (and yes responsibility) is not merely another factor that qualifies you to be in the race but indeed is the very factor that will guarantee your victory in the race.

Your economic message lacks a genuine roadmap back to prosperity that most of the electorate is waiting to hear from you. That roadmap starts with the individual and their freedoms.