Is Cameron trying to do an Obama?
February 29th, 2008
What do we think of their new £500k campaign?
In almost all the national papers this morning there are large ads from the Conservatives which are aimed, it seems. at building up a supporter base rather than winning votes.
There’s a different theme in every newspaper but the objective appears to be the same - “Join us at Conservatives.com”. The message in the Times is about economic competence, green issues get singled out for special attention in the Independent while the emphasis is on jobs in the Express.
It looks as though the Tories have watched how Barack Obama’s campaign has evolved in the US and concluded that it is vital for a political party to have a large supporter base all of whom are contactable online. Certainly the front-runner for the Dems has done some remarkable things with the internet and this is giving him a real edge both for fundraising and mobilising an activist base.
In the UK we don’t yet have the strict fundraising controls that exist in the US - there is no maximum donation level here unlike across the pond where the most you can give to a campaign is $2300.
My guess is that this Tory campaign is about much more than money. Like all the other parties there has been a big decline in membership and to run effective elections you need to be able to resource big ground operations in key target seats.
Will it work? It will be interesting to watch.
US election online delegate calculator: this from Forbes is fun to play with.
Mike Smithson
I had two further enquiries but the posters did not follow up with emails, as requested, so I have not been able to include them. Since we want to avoid the group becoming too large and therefore unwieldy, we have decided to close membership for the time being. We may reopen it later or perhaps even start a second syndicate, if successful.
MessageSpace Advertising
Except that the Conservative attempt at imitation is rather poorly - even embarrasingly - executed. They may have seen what Obama is doing but they haven’t learned from it.
Gord and his chums will have a field day,I can hear the taunts”It’s another gimmick by the Conservatives”
The word”gimmick “will come around to haunt the “Old Etonian”
2.
So political campaigning is a gimmick? And the competition is going to give a political campaign more publicity?
I don’t know if it will be successful, but its an interesting approach, that is not really open to the party of government of the last decade.
If it is even mildly successful, expect more new approaches (£500.000 is not a huge budget). The campaign is trying to set up the Conservative Party as a positive alternative, which would make criticism of the government more successful. It is also trying to recruit foot soldiers, a very important tactic, seeing as party membership is down across the board, and allegedly most of all in the Labour party.
If I joined the syndicate it would be rather like Trigger’s contribution to Del Boy’s gold necklace scam.
I don’t see how anyone could disapprove of the concept. It’s ultimate aim, if successful, is presumably to bring in strict donation limits (a la the US) and remove many of the current problems surrounding political funding.
Its a very interesting follow to Boris SMS adverts of last week. How can it be dismissed as a gimmick is beyond me. Its an advert (well several different adverts) not some big political statement.
The message of the advert is positive and like Mike says its about finding out who you supporters are.
New Zogby poll result - Ohio, Texas Tracker.
Ohio comes within MOE. Obama’s lead widens in TX
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5580776.html
Ohio;
Clinton 44.1 %
Obama 41.5 %
MOE +/- 3.8%
Texas;
Obama 48.2%
Clinton 41.7%
MOE +/- 3.8%
Think that’s in order? - no time to check Zogby’s recent history (aware they have have a tough season) off to work. Toodle pip.
There has been a lot of talk in the papers about Andrew Lansley and George Osborne being ‘untouchable’ after having their jobs guaranteed until after the next election. I vaguely remember this, but does anyone know why Cameron did it?
6) Detailed report on the numbers from Zogby website; http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1457
The Conservatives already have the largest membership of any party in Britain, but like those of the lib Dems and Labour, its average age is getting on a bit. I should have thought that one aim is to gain more younger members, by which I don’t necessarily mean CF, useful though they are, I really mean people who’ve settled down in life and in a community, in their 30s and 40s. I don’t know whether this campaign will work, but it’s surely the sort of thing any political party should be doing when it’s getting good polling ratings? I certainly don’t see GB knocking it doing the campaign any harm, if he tries to - and he probably will.
On yesterday’s thread, I didn’t have chance to comment, but it’s an excellent idea and I wish it all the best. Good luck to those involved, especially the gamblers.
Nationwide house prices down 0.5% in Feb, 4th straight monthly decline. Dec-Feb prices fell at a 4% annualised rate versus previous three months, worst since 1995. Starting to resemble the US numbers.
This may conceivably affect the next GE.
I think it’s smart. Very parodyable but all good advertising is.
Will it go down well with the ‘blue rinses’? As they aren’t the target market it doesn’t matter anyway. This is aimed at the unconverted. There is a well known saying among advertisers that half the money spent on it is wasted and if only they knew which half they could save a fortune.
10. For once, I (almost) agree with Roger. The only aspect I’d take issue with is the target audience. As anyone involved with their local voluntary party knows, trying to recruit the ‘unconverted’ is a waste of time. This is aimed at the already converted, although perhaps especially at the recently converted - the 8-10% in the polls added since Cameron became leader - who have already decided they’re Conservatives, but hadn’t previously gone further than voting that way, or making the decision to do so in future.
9. Dr Death (Herbert Proper) Shouldn’t we all hope they continue to go down at this rate making it easier for the unfortunate first time buyers and those on low incomes to buy their homes? Or should we hope that those sitting on a huge paper profit shouldn’t habe it interfered with?
I agree, its aimed at the people who have started thinking about voting Tory again. Its too encourage them to give a little money and then maybe a little time.
Mike,
I have changed my email address and I appear to be stuck in moderation…but it is me.
13 Smart idea. Well done DC and/or whoever was behind this.
12. What a naive fool. These price falls will not help most first time buyers, who are being cut out of the market by higher deposit requirements and other tighter credit standards.
Instead, they will cause negative equity for those poor young innocents who struggled onto the housing ladder with 95%, 100% and 100%+ plus mortgages over the last 18 months.
And losses too for those who borrowed against the increased value of their homes.
And lower wealth for all others.
So joyous are the people at this prospect that consumer confidence fell yesterday to the lowest level for 13 years.
Buy Labour - not.
Whohahahahahahhahaha
Its a good idea. I agree its open to parody but it is positive and that is where the Conservatives need to start moving. I do get a feeling that as noted by some posters here, the NR nationalisation seemed to be a ‘book end’ for the fairly personal attacks on Brown.
Since then with the article on the NHS, DC’s performance at question time, expenses and this strategy, there seems to be more emphasis on what the Conservatives would do. I may be wrong but it definitley feels different.
16. I meant DC’s performance at PMQ’s of course. I am certainly worried about my paper profits, over the last ten years Brown’s taken enough of my money to look after his base thank you very much. Its not my fault if he is done such a cackhanded job of spending it.
Don’t know why, but something about it reminds me of the 2012 logo fiasco. Difficult for old/middle-aged men to pull something off that’s trying to appear hip.
Especially if they’re old enough to know what ‘hip’ means!
Rob
I think this sort of thing is where Cameron scores heavily, it is the sort of thing that works on a couple of levels. Firstly it generates initial interest which will provide an initial impetus but it will also have a seepage effect longer term. Secondly it helps Cameron to portray himself as being somewhat against the machine which is a useful seam to mine.
I think it probably won’t be as successful as is hoped, nor as much of a failure as opponents wish. It certainly feeds into the notion I have that the Cameron team have decided to book-end a period with the non-election and the nationalisation and now are highlighting the positive virtues of the Conservatives rather than the negatives of Labour.
Also slightly O/T but it looks like Labours mayoral strategy is to portray Boris as nasty and reactionary. If that is the case then I think it will backfire spectacularly as the voting public in general simply won’t buy it. It looks and feels like a core vote strategy, which history shows is never terribly successful.
19. Thanks for reminding me who came up with the ‘book end’ analysis..I agreed with you then that it was the right thing to do and I am hoping now that this is another example of CCHQ actually putting it into operation.
I remember everybody sneared when the Conservatives came up with their green Oak Tree logo. But actually, I think its worked rather well and a couple of years on, I don’t think anybody really thinks about it, except perhaps on a subliminal level?
Its got people talking about the advert, which is the best you can hope for (see FCUK for example).
Its a good move.
More re-branding needed though to say they have changed.
The tree is fine.
Next it will be New Conservatives - New Britain!
Only joking on that one.
If you are under 25 it might all seem original.
However I believe Philip Gould`s the Unfinished Revolution is the format the modern conservatives refer too, for electoral success and use some of the ideas.
You ask if CCHQ is following Obama, but in fact the party has been trying to learn the lessons of the 2004 US election ever since. From Tim Montgomerie to Francis Maude and the Cameron inner circle there has been an appetite for this ever since they saw the organisational success of the Dean machine. This is merely a logical extension of WebCameron and other net based initiatives that put the other two main parties completely in the shade. There’s still a long way to go, but if you were to ask who is trying hardest to exploit the net, reach out to the apathetic, come up with new policies for the new century and generally make politics fresh, then there’s only one party in the frame.
re 16. It’s been cleared.
Just to note that if the PB server doesn’t recognise your details then your post gets held up in moderation.
22 - Being pedantic, one too many ‘o’s in your final sentence. It should be ‘to’ not ‘too’.
As to your point I think the parallels can be extended further than they in fact go. Whilst there may be a few parallels, as to whether it is a conscious effort to replicate the Blairising of Labour is another matter. Personally I think that the similarities are overblown and I think that it is as much coincidence as anything else. I think the Cameronisation of the Conservatives is more significant than the Blairisation of Labour, the latter was a lot more cosmetic than any of the protagonists will ever admit Cameron has actually made more significant policy shifts than Blair ever did.
Well I’ve just ordered thousands of flyers with this on it so I hope it works!!!
I thought The Oak Tree was an excellent piece of work and still do. I cant’t help but think when I look at the well designed and rebranded ad at the top that they really are ignoring the elephant in the room……
Their agency must be pulling their hair out. They change the colours the logo their typeface…..everything but have to stick with that God-awful name CONSERVATIVE!!!
31 - Nothing wrong with Conservative, it’s ten times better than Labour
The political party is dead, all attempts to revive it will fail.
So DC is doing an Obama is he, what next? will he go, ‘black’ ‘Yo bro, give me five’
Nuff to make u wanna vomit!!
How original - Labour has been running the Supporters Network online for at least 3 years. Well done to the Tories for catching up.
28. think the Cameronisation of the Conservatives is more significant than the Blairisation of Labour, the latter was a lot more cosmetic than any of the protagonists will ever admit Cameron has actually made more significant policy shifts than Blair ever did.
That’s very debatable. New Labour involved Labour stopping being a full blown socialist party. New Tories involve simply moderating some of the more radical Thatcherite ideas, which actually never were successfully implemented in the first place.
33 - Did you see that show called Time Trumpet? Had an imaginary DC on it 30 years in the future. He says “Yes, I actually went black for a week.” As the prince of gimmickry I wouldn’t put it past him.
34. And hasn’t it just been a huge success? How has membership and fundraising done over that period, may one ask?
35 - The point is that most of the policies Blair went with had been extant under John Smith. All Blair did was tweak a few here and there, scrap clause 4 which was basically redundant in any event and coast on the back of the Conservatives then unpopularity.
The adverts look clean, pleasant, aspirational and above all, positive - all the Good Things Dave himself attempts to convey. Smart work by the Tories.
31. Roger, I agree and yet disagree with you. You are right that this is a fairly nifty piece of advertising - hardly earth-shattering, but nicely pitched and reasonably subtle.
Better than a lot of rubbishy British political advertising, anyway.
You are spot on that the sign of a good as is its parodic potential - imitation being sincere flattery, after all.
Where you are wrong is saying the name “conservatives” is a disaster. I used to think that but in the last three minutes - literally - it’s just occurred to me that this ain’t so.
It’s only the older generation (yes, including me) who associate conservatives with bad things: poll tax, recessions, ERM, etc. For a lot of people, especially young people, the “conservatives” are just the people in opposition, sometimes faintly comic, sometimes faintly interesting - no more than that.
As an actual name, “conservatives” actually has potential as a brand - because it is so close to “conservation” - a buzz word of the modern era and something everyone wants to be associated with.
If the Tory ad agency get just get the brand shifted so that everyone associates “conservatives” with “conservation” I think they will be onto a winner. If anything it is the word “Tory” that the Tories should be abjuring: that is harder to refashion.
“Labour” is arguably a much harder word to rebrand: so redolent of industrial strife and a long vanished, unlamented age of trade union power and national decline. That’s why Blair was so keen on NEW Labour.
So the word “conservatives” is just fine: especially when matched with the oak tree.
Clever stuff.
29.”….think the Cameronisation of the Conservatives is more significant than the Blairisation of Labour”
Apart from dropping the overt racism sexism and homophobia what exactly are you talking about? I can’t think of anything he’s done that isn’t cosmetic. Read Alastaire Cambells book if you want to see what Blair did to Labour.
Remaining results from yesterday :-
Tynedale Dc Hexham Gilesgate Con hold Con 178 LibDem 96 Lab 60 result last May Con 311 LibDem 91
Ellesmere Port/Neston Westminster Lab hold Lab 227 Con 123 LibDem 45 result last May Lab 472 Con 217
All 4 byelections yesterday showed a fall in Conservative support with their voters showing no enthusiasm for getting out of their armchairs and going to the polling booth .
In 1954 The Conservatives claimed a membership of 2.8 million, Labour 800,000, even in 1970 the Tories claimed a membership of 2.0 million. All political parties fib about their membership, over inflate their figures, include people who haven’t paid the levy for years.
For the Tories in particular, an active member, is one who can get their zimmer frame out from under the stairs.
35 Labour has never been a full blooded socialist party, not even in ‘83. But all that is history
More to the point this is a reasonable PR / marketing stunt by Cameron that keeps momentum up and that is about it. There is a fundemental flaw in active politics that unlike advertising about 95% of it is wasted time, and people with ability recognise there are more fruitfull ways of adding to society.
The fact that the best political website is a betting one, and that the betting is crucial to its success rather reaffirms this. We are in the entertainment industry
34
Is that why the membership has been declining over the past few years?
Free spirits, unshackled people, celebrating the removal of ID cards, CCTV and data bases, does the logo match the philosophy? Does DC represent a break from centralising policies of Mrs T or not? A break with the tiresome nanny from Whitehall knows best line of NuLab wouldn’t be a bad thing.
The power of the state has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. There is scope for learning from the US, by reducing the level of central patronage and appointments to unelected public bodies. There is also some room for more elections to public bodies.
7/9 PC. Thanks for that ‘Zogby’ report. That’s the first post debate poll from Ohio and it’s clear that it is trending Obama, albeit at a more leisurely pace than Texas. The Texas poll numbers are outside the MoE and indicate that Hillary is in desperate trouble in the Lone Star State.
Just to give Hillary fans some further bad news, Chuck Todd of MSNBC is reporting that Obama has bought up two minute ad buys in Ohio and Texas to run on Monday, the day before the primaries !!
And just to show that dire news runs in threes I am am awaiting confirmation of a report that PB’s very own ‘Roger’ is backing Hillary for a clean sweep on Tuesday …. surely she has now received the ‘black spot’ !!!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/28/714150.aspx
31. To an extent I agree with you - Conservative is too long for a start. If only there were a shorter, catchier alternative which could be used, without it looking like gratuitous rebranding.
The fallout from Lansley continues.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3456222.ece
Based on Obama’s 6.5% lead over Hillary in Texas, as per Political Capital’s post #7 above, reporting on Zogby’s latest poll, and with the momentum continuing to be with the Illinois Senator, Paddy Power’s stand-out odds of 4/11 (or .36/1) appear to represent good value.
Thanks Mike!!
Littlejohn is not impressed by ‘Call me Dave’
http://tinyurl.com/265qu2
43. Evidence please. I am a member and I am in my 30’s and I know many others of similar age. Good 90’s retoric there but a bit tired now. Please try harder.
Good to see Labdemer anoraks pretending signifiance in local by-elections again, it always seems to happen this time of the week.
47. I certainly am Jack! My money’s still on a Guilliani-Hillary contest with Hillary……..sorry that’s now a Huckerbee-Hillary contest with Hillary storming home in November.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/VirtualContent/86950/20070716100820.jpg
46. Totally agree with that. The Conservatives must - absolutely MUST - go down the road of more democracy.
Elected mayors.
Elected police chiefs.
Let power cascade down.
More referendums. More participation. Voting by internet. An entirely elected Lords. An end to party lists.
An end to unelected rule from Brussels. A vote on any further European integration. Votes, freedom, and democracy. That must be the Tory theme.
Elected heads of quangos. Elect elect elect.
This is the only way to go: it would also seriously embarrass the Lib Dems and Labour, who are happy to hide power from the people, deny them a referendum on Europe, restrict voter choice with party lists, etc etc etc.
The Conservatives must be the real party of the people: giving power to the people. Unlike the liberal left which just pays lipservice to the people - but thinks the people are basically too stupid to be trusted with really big decisions, like Europe or whatever.
The left will just say “oh, but no one cares, no one will vote”, but that is just despicable, and shows the poverty of their thinking after ten years in power.
Look at Obama. Massively increased turnouts. Huge enthusiasm. People WILL seriously engage IF they think they are being given a real choice, and a real chance to change things.
43. Evidence please. I am a member and I am in my 30’s and I know many others of similar age. Good 90’s retoric there but a bit tired now. Please try harder.
Good to see Labdemer anoraks pretending signifiance in local by-elections again, it always seems to happen this time of the week.
We (onservative voters)get off our armchairs for things that have some semblance of interest and importance. We will let others waste their time until then.
Coldstone,
Whenever the likes of Heffer, LittleJohn,Hitchens, Mel Philips et al attack Dave, all it does is serve to remind people the Tories are changing.
The bulk of the tory party went through the autumn 07 scare and came out more united. The biggest favour Brown could have done them.
55, an entirely elected Lords would be a bad thing. They wouldn’t be guaranteed their place for life, and so would fall under the same pressure to be obedient that MPs do. One of the best things about the Lords is their independence.
Voting by internet is completely out of the question. The possibility for hacking is simply too serious.
I agree with more referenda and perhaps elected mayors. Not sure about police chiefs, though it would allow cockneys to get rid of the odious Blair.
Vis-a-vis the new Tory campaign, seems like a good idea. Have to wait and see how it goes.
Voting by post is fraud ridden. The EU described the UK elections in 2005 as like something seen in a banana republic. I cannot see internet voting been less fraud ridden.
The government has terrible track record when it comes to IT.
Its a difference between the modernisation processes of Labour and that of the Conservatives that the commentariat, led by Martin Jacques and Charlie Leadbetter in particular were much more sympathetic to Labour’s shift to the centre than their Tory equivalents Heffer et al are.
Heffer et al won’t change and still fighting battles from the last century.
58 - MP’s are only pliable because of the fused legislature-executive. Divorce the executive from the legislature to establish separate career paths and you would find a much more interesting House.
58 - wholeheartedly agree. An elected second chamber would be a poodle.
Currently we put people there who are relatively unbeholden to the Parties, because they can’t be removed, even if it was the Party that put them there.
62, not sure exactly what you mean there. Care to elaborate?
You have to say that the rebranding of the Tories is interesting and if it’s reflected in substantial change is a positive development.
The key difference between this effort and Obama is that Obama has no baggage to carry. Cameron is far more associated with the Tory brand. And there is probably enough antipathy towards that brand to raise doubts about the rebranding. Nevertheless, from Cameron’s point of view this surely has to be worth a try.
We’ll see if it turns out to be an overambitious gimmick like the Tony Lit Campaign or the London Mayoral primary. Is it worth pointing out that Labour refreshed its brand on the quiet this year.
My political tip of the day - Michael Bloomberg to be Obama’s VP nominee. Definitely worth a small bet. At 26’s on Betfair.
58. 59. Sorry, but this is pitifully defeatist.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to find a method of internet voting that is acceptably secure.
No voting method is entirely fraudproof - as we all know. But it is very arguable that internet voting would be less open to abuse, certainly compared with the postal voting anomalies we see in some Muslim communities: where the patriarch decides the entire family’s votes, or even the entire neighbourhood’s.
We need to get turnout up. We should have polling booths everywhere, and voting be text and the web. We’ve just got to work out how. Giving up is not an option.
62 - Full separation of powers, a legislature and separate executive. No person capable of being in the legislature and the executive, intstead of the mish-mash partially fused partially separate situation we have at the moment.
Politicans need to get there own house in order and that might start to get turn out up.
67 Not only does it need to be secure, but it needs understandable by 90% of it user and has to be transparent. Until the net fully embeds itself in the daily lives of most people (and it’s nowhere close yet) we have to stick with paper and pencil. This will change.
BTW SeanT you sound very New Labour today with all your talk of Mayors and new voting methods!
“Is it worth pointing out that Labour refreshed its brand on the quiet this year.”
They did? It must’ve been very quiet. Isn’t nationalisation regression, rather than progression?
I never realised Barack Obama was the only person ever to have ideas and everyone is now copying him.
63. Whereas now we have, in the Lords, appointment by prime-ministerial patronage, and a bunch of the great and the good etc etc.
So make the Lords electable every seven years, by some kind of AV - not by party list. Deny them a chance of ever being in the government, but pay them very very well indeed.
This will make them independent, and offer them no chance of political preferment. They will be secure in their jobs for long terms. They will be smart people attracted by the very good money.
Result: an intelligent and wholly elected house with a very independent streak.
No?
67, it’s realistic. If it’s on the internet, it can be hacked. Nobody has ever hacked into a biro and a small piece of paper. In the case of voting, the old fashioned system is as foolproof as it gets.
I agree that widespread postal voting is ridiculous and should be scrapped, with very few exceptions.
Texting and net voting is simply too risky. We will never have a safety mechanism using hi-tech methods that is anywhere near as good as pen and paper.
Which newspaper did you take your picture from, Mike? I looks to me as though it might have come from the ASBO Gazette and Times.
I expect the Tories will have a good response.
But what is the message they are really transmitting?
It’s not that it can be hacked, it’s that only a specialist group of nerds will understand the system and we will all have to take their word in good faith. A pencil and paper systems is fine.
Give people a day off on election day. It’s once every 5 years, let’s celebrate it. Local elections can be held at the weekend.
74 - I agree, personally I would never vote by text or the internet. I like the brisk walk to the polling station and the stubby little pencil on a bit of ancient string.
74 - It isn’t the hacking that’s the worry. It is the person standing at the voter’s shoulder that’s the worry with internet (and postal) voting.
As to hacking - not much of a problem. On-line banking is pretty secure and voting can be too. Of course, there is always some risk but equally there is a risk of turning up at the polling station to find somebody has already been in and voted as you (happened to me the other year although I suspect it may have been polling staff crossing out the wrong name when a neighbour voted).
re 55 “An end to unelected rule from Brussels. A vote on any further European integration. Votes, freedom, and democracy. That must be the Tory theme.”
Yes and look what it did for William Hague in 2001 or Major in 1997.
SeanT - I’ll do a deal - if you don’t mention the EU for a day I want mention that almost nobody gives a t0ss.
Setting out pre-election goals for the number of MPs/MSPs/councillors you are aiming to get elected, in public, is a mug’s game. It seems like Scottish politics has a new mug on the block:
“The Liberal Democrat leader is to set his party the task of doubling its tally of Scottish MPs within six years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7270180.stm
Just in case anyone needed reminding:
- the Scottish Liberal Democrats have lost half of their support since UK GE 2005, according to a long line of voting intention polls (down at 10% - 12%)
- the Scottish Liberal Democrats have been performing extremely poorly at council by elections (again at about 11% of the vote on average in the last 8 months)
If the Unionists are not extremely careful, then it is a distinct possibility that Scotland will not even be taking part in the UK GE after the next one.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/scottish-voting-intention/
http://www.alba.org.uk/localby/localbytotal08.html
Low turnout is because huge swathes of people are apathetic towards the political system. You only have to walk down to the community centre once every 4 or 5 years to vote in a General Election.
The politicians have to enthuse the electorate. Having more voting options disguises the underlying problem.
This is why Obama is such an extraordinary politician. Probably the closest we have had was Blair in ‘97.
Lets hope Obama does’t let us down as much as Blair.
Sorry, for the tenuous attempts to link all current threads…..
74. I have a twelve digit number and a password that enables me to access my bank account online.
With this number and password I can send money anywhere. It would be very much in the interests of fraudsters to get hold of that number and password to steal my money, but no one has yet.
Why? If its that easy they’d do it. But they don’t. Because it actually isn’t that easy. And certainly the incentive to steal my latest advance from my publishers would be greater than hacking into one person’s computer to change one single vote in a general election.
Give everyone a twelve digit number and a password so they can vote online. Get out there and publicise the system.
Of course this will exclude people who are too dim or unsavvy or lazy to understand such things, but they can still postal vote, or vote by proxy, or vote in the polling booth. And I’d like to see polling booths in all the major supermarkets. In pubs. Everywhere.
And switch the election day to Saturday or Sunday.
Do all this and turnout would go up 10% immediately.
re 75. No - it wasn’t from the ASBO gazette - next best thing though - Conservatives.com
75. I think Cameron’s concept here is good, but the execution is poor. Two points:
(1) The adverts look vacuous. Pictures of real people would be better, as would more tightly-focussed message. As it is, this looks like a cross between “Are you thinking what we’re thinking” and the failed soft-touch Abbey National rebranding of a few years back.
(2) “You can get it if you really want it” is an appalling slogan. Incredibly Thatcherite and aspirational, smacking of “greed is good”, and wholly in line with Cameron’s recent embrace of pushy parents. If Gordon had not invited Maggie round to tea, this would be an open goal for Labour to accuse Cameron of returning to the 1980s. As it is, Clegg has a chance to point out that not everyone can get what they want, and that if the Tories are serious about being “progressive” they need to find a way to give everyone a chance to fulfil their potential.
79. No. I’m right. You’re wrong. End of.
82. Agree Sunday elections would be great. After a pie and a pint in the local, I could then vote and be comfortably home for the 4pm footie.
The Lords?
Start from the existing house.
Elect thirty new peers, for life, each year, ten each elected by:
The general electorate, the House of Commons, The House of Lords.
(each election by STV).
Mark at 42. Your Liberal democrats in Bromsgrove did not have to stir in Bromsgrove. Despite holding the seat the party did not see fit to put up a candidate, thereby costing the Liberal democrats their last seat on the council.
86 - Most people would never get to the polling booth and would probably remain in the pub!
Mike and Jack. Thank you very much for your replies. My reaction was very much that it was Cameron’s Conservatives once again pandering to the selfish and the greedy (and violent). Rather nasty really.
57
Of course the Tories are changing, everyone can see that, they’re changing into hmmmm, New Labour!
If it worked for Blair it’ll work for Dave!
88 - Was that therefore a Conservative gain?
[81] - Blair doesn’t come close to Obama - turnout was down in 1997 compared with 1992, not a particular sign of much enthusiasm for Blair.
91 - The idea that Cameron is turning the Conservative Party into a version of New Labour is as silly as the idea that in the 90’s Blair was turning the Labour Party into a Conservative Party.
81. But I don’t see any clear relationship between turnout and a politician’s ability to enthuse the electorate.
UK General Election turnout
1992 77.67%
1997 71.2%
US Presidential Election turnout
2000 54.5%
2004 60.7% (highest since 1968)
I don’t think Kinnock and Major were any more inspiring than Blair, or that Kerry and Bush were the most inspiring pair of presidential candidates since 1968. Voters are brought to the polls by partisanship, attitudes to the incumbent, and the closeness of the race. In part, Obama has energized new voters because they want to see him beat Hillary and they know the race is close.
[82] - I worked at the Inland Revenue a few years ago, I’ve seen how government-run/tendered computer systems work. Do you have any idea how secure the National Insurance number system is? Not very…
80: Stuart, Hows the anschluss of Berwick upon Tweed proceeding?
94
Sorry! I got the idea from that silly ‘ol fart Lord Tebbit, we silly ‘ol farts stick together y’know.
76
A day off is a good idea. As a teacher one of my bitterest memories was of when they switched the polling station from the school to the village hall.
80. Clegg will be in Cornwall in next week, telling the Lib Dems there to double their number of seats.
95. I think a real choice is possibly more important in an election than a charismatic candidate, in terms of turn-out.
The last French prez election had a huge turnout, if I remember rightly, because there was a fairly stark choice between Sarkozy’s radical rightist reformism and Royal’s more-of-the-same patrician social democracy.
One reason Obama is getting big turnouts is maybe coz there WILL be a big choice between a black liberal candidate and an old style white Republican - and people want to see this big choice.
As the two British parties have grown closer together ideologically, in the post Thatcherite consensus, so turnouts have fallen. There ain’t no choice. So why bother voting?
This is why attitudes like Mike’s to the EU question are so depressing. Giving the people a say on the Constitution would be a big big decision: I think people would get interested, we’d have passionate debates, a proper airing of views, and in the end we’d get a very respectable turnout.
But at the moment the government refuses to even ask the people, despite its promise, so the people refuse to express an interest; and then so-called “Liberal Democrats” use this understandable public disenchantment as an excuse for betraying the electorate.
Shameful.
Let’s give people a choice: on everything. Give them votes and referenda and all the rest, on the whole kit and kaboodle. Like California or Switzerland.
68 Personally, I think it is a good thing that ministers are part of the legislature.
92 I believe that it was.
101 - “But at the moment the government refuses to even ask the people, despite its promise, so the people refuse to express an interest”
I think you’ll find that the government gets away with not fulfilling its promise on a referendum because the people dont care much about it rather than the people dont care much about it because they’re not getting a referendum as promised.
82, and other Doubting Thomases, just a few weeks ago I read a story regarding a new banking virus (norovirus, I think it was called, nicknamed the Silent Banker). It interacts between the banking website and the user, and can be picked up, unnoticed, from the net. Basically it removes your cash but replicates the page as it should appear to you, so you can’t see anything is wrong. The first thing people know about it is when they get a bank statement.
For those worried, up to date virus protection should be enough to see it off. However, it does highlight the point that the internet is not something that can be classed as airtight, and it is not secure enough for voting to take place on it.
The problem is that people are so keen to embrace flash new technology they rarely bother to ask:
1) is it necessary?
2) is it any better than what’s currently available?
Polling booths with pen and paper work fine. The internet is less secure and postal voting is fraudster heaven.
102 - In what sense is it a good thing?
101. SeanT “Let’s give people a choice: on everything. Give them votes and referenda and all the rest, on the whole kit and kaboodle. Like California or Switzerland.”
What do you think of my idea of a mega-referendum day. In or out? Lisbon or not? FPTP or STV? Lords reform? Scottish independence? More powers for Wales?
That would provide for a lot of betting, but it would end PB hackery for good. All the eurosceptic fanatics, europhiles, electoral reform fanatics and Stuart Dicksons would have to accept the verdict of the electorate (most of whom wouldn’t have a clue what they were voting yes or no to). And it should leave the country in enough of a constitutional muddle to keep our politicians busy for a good decade or more.
OT: Harry to be withdrawn from Afghanistan.
84+90. Wow hard did have to try to come up with that drivel?
You must have been staring at the ad for hours to try and think of some negative interpretation.
Shame after all that effort that your just plain wrong.
How you can think the slogan is about greed and the 80’s is quite bizzare. I am not sure its a great slogan particulalry. It doesn’t really roll off the tounge but it is entirely aspirational and why that should not be aspiration for all is beyond me. Saying its nasty is just ridiculous but coming from Labdem anoraks I guess that’s not surprising.
102, Ministers ought to have experience of how to draft legislation, and of how it’s likely to be received and amended by the legislature; and they should be accountable to the legislature.
104. Regular referenda seem to work well enough in the USA and Switzerland. If the Athenians could understand and vote on legislative proposals, so can we.
102 - Thanks. Mark Senior will obviously be heartened that sufficient Conservative voters appeared to gain the seat: indeed, I venture that this might even make his day. We really do like to spread a little happiness.
I’ll believe the Tories have changed when they promise to end the tax avoidance that costs the exchequer £25bn. Or a bit more than £400 per person in the UK. Now that’s a tax bombshell.
See the article by Cameron’s friend Polly Toynbee
Unfortunately it seems that only Cable is on the case.
107. What? I think it’s fairly obvious.
Obama’s “Yes we can” is about collective purpose. Cameron’s slogan is basically telling citizens to do whatever they can to achieve their individual goals.
108 - I was under the impression that legislation was drafted by officials rather than ministers. Legislation is complicated and I would be frankly rather worried if ministers were writing their own Parliamentary bills. Removing ministers from Parliament wouldn’t necessarily have to impact the effective drafting of legislation. As to your second point you don’t have to sit on a body to be accountable to it.
103. You simply don’t know that. You have no proof at all. At least I have the evidence of referenda in France and the Netherlands on the very same Constitution question - which both got very respectable turnouts.
But of course we will never know how much the British care, because they are not going to be asked, despite Labour and Lib Dem promises: and so the Smithson Canard of voter apathy becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Disgraceful. Talking of party name changes,the Liberal Democrats should get rid of their ridiculous, embarrassing and unwieldy name and just call themselves: The W*nkers.
As names go that would at least be accurate.
105. I’m not entirely averse to that idea! - though I think it might just be too much info to swallow in one gulp.
I do think a reforming Cameron government has got to tackle all of these problems: West Lothian, the anomalies of FPTP, the bias to Labour in constituencies, the bias to the Tories in funding, the EU (of course), unelected quangos, etc etc etc.
There will be lots to do for a Cammo government. Labour have lost the stomach for change, as most of it would disbenefit them.
This type of campaign will continue to raise the awareness of the Conservative party under Cameron in a positive way. Its not gimmicky, just good politics to focus on the voters outside of a GE period.
How times have changed, after repeatedly failing to use the period between GE’s in recent years constructively, we are dominating the agenda and leading the debate on many issues with a positive message rather than bad headlines.
The grammar school row and the threatened Autumn GE last year was a tipping point for the Conservatives, it finally knocked us out of the perpetual cycle of naval gazing and internal bickering which was such a regular feature of the midterm press coverage in recent years.
Sean Fear highlighted the fact that the party is showing real discipline in Parliament over the issue of the Lisbon Treaty. The Andrew Lansley piece in the Times would have caused much hot air on Conservative blogs just 6 months ago, I have been surprised by the relaxed response, despite one or two rants from some in the media.
As with the Ken vs Boris contest, wasn’t it a major part of the Livingston/Brownite strategy that the Conservatives would revert to type thus holing themselves below the water?
At first I had thought it was one of the ipod ads. But what is so wrong with aspirations being fulfilled? How have an aspiration to succeed becomes a mantra for greed is good is an extraordinary leap of misplaced logic.
Well, I plan my tax affairs to minimise the amount of tax I pay (which is still fairly substantial) and I’m sure you do the same. So does virtually everyone else, and provided that people who avoid tax do so lawfully, there’s no problem. The government has no claim on what does not lawfully belong to it.
WRT tax havens as such, it’s reasonable that they should be made to end the secrecy surrounding their transactions, but wholly unreaosonable that high-taxing governments should try to bully low-taxing ones into raising their rates.
112 Actually, I think any fairly literate person ought to be able to understand the legislation that goes out in their name, and I think one reason why so much bad legislation is produced is precisely because it’s left to officials.
Why do you think ministers shouldn’t sit in the legislature?
Obama must be a fan of Bob the Builder.
116. In the case of the UK, they didn’t even need to do any bullying. The authorities (Labour) just gave in…hence the mass emigration of talent we now see…
[84] - “(1) The adverts look vacuous. Pictures of real people would be better…”
The silhouette people worked very well for Apple/iPod, very “trendy”. Perhaps the Tories will pilfer the iPod shuffle “people-morphing” ad for an election broadcast?
111. Well maybe its obvious to self- absorbed Lefties but I don’t see anything nasty, greedy, or limiting in even your second interpretation.
I think the obvious implication from the fact it is a political advert is that unlike the spoon feeding, nannying unaspirational Left, the Conservative party will not accept the status quo and will enable you to achieve whatever you want (whoever you are or where you come from) but part of that deal is that you need to get off your ar5e and doing something about it.
What’s nasty about that?
117 - I think that having ministers in the legislature leads to payroll votes and diminished scrutiny. I also think it leads to short termism in terms of personnel as those outside the executive push for promotion. I think it is bad for both halves of the equation.
PA reports:Tories gained in the latest council by-elections despite a result which saw their vote halved.
Their candidate Diane Campbell took a Slideslow seat at Worcestershire’s Bromsgrove District from Liberal Democrats who failed to fight.
But she had a majority of just 55 votes in a tight three-way battle with an independent and also with Labour which was only a further 13 behind after not contesting in last May’s main polls.
There was another Tory close call at South London’s Sutton Borough when they defended a Cheam seat with a majority cut to 87 by Lib Dems.
Despite a further slump at Hexham Gilesgate, Tynedale District, Northumberland they still won comfortably.
However, they managed a net swing from Labour at Westminster, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough, Cheshire.
Analysis of 16 comparable by-elections in February suggests a projected nationwide Tory lead of 10.7%.
Allowing for observed differences in party support between local and general elections, this indicates a fractional swing to Conservatives in this May’s polls compared with 2004 when most seats up were last contested.
A calculation based on 10 wards fought both times by all three major parties gives a line-up of: C 40%, Lab 28.3%, Lib Dem 24.8%.
Low turnouts at Ellesmere Port and Tynedale may be due to the fact that the councils are due to be axed next year under reorganisation plans.
RESULTS:
Bromsgrove District - Slideslow: C 372, Ind 317, Lab 304, Ukip 104. (May 2007 - Two seats C 855, Lib Dem 767, C 661, Lib Dem 572, Ind 246). C gain from Lib Dem.
Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough - Westminster: Lab 227, C 123, Lib Dem 45. (May 2007 - Lab 472, C 217). Lab hold. Swing 5.3% Lab to C.
Sutton London Borough - Cheam: C 1541, Lib Dem 1454, Ukip 260, Lab 106. (May 2006 - Three seats C 2251, 2170, 2072, Lib Dem 1535, 1468, 1389, Lab 107, 99, 94). C hold. Swing 8.1% C to Lib Dem.
Tynedale District - Hexham Gilesgate: C 178, Lib Dem 96, Lab 60. (May 2007 - C 311, Lib Dem 91). C hold. Swing 15.1% C to Lib Dem.
end 291017 FEB 08
So notional shares in line with the polls?
I think the advet is OK - it hasn’t exactly set me alight, but I can see the strategy behind it and I think it is the right one. I have said many times before that I believe Cameron has a masterplan for a 2010 election which he is executing very well. The policy reviews were a key part of that, as was and is the ‘detoxification’ of the Tory brand. Clearly vocal opposition to and criticism of the Government will play an important ongoing role, but as the election draws closer the emphasis will be on positive energy and ideas, setting out a government in waiting stall and gathering momentum, making the Govt look (even more) tired.
Comments like those from Tressgae and Jack Peterson are to be expected. If cameron climbed a tree to save a cat, they would think he only did it to ensure the mutilation of mice could continue.
Finally, off topic. Please can people start referring to Obama as the Big O… I want to start a trend of people referring to the Big O’s Big Mo…
121. Yes, aspiration is fine - IF you take the liberal approach of redistributing wealth so that everyone has a basis to build on. But I don’t see Cameron taking up a Universal Asset Scheme. Indeed, his IHT policies are likely to increase the disparity in inheritances between the upper middle class and the rest of the population.
I don’t want a “spoon feeding, nannying unaspirational Left” any more than you do, but I don’t think Cameron is especially interested in changing the status quo.
Another way for Cameron to promote a real culture of aspiration and hard work would have been to extend grammar schools - but he’s shied away from that too.
[116] - Of course, I donate my money to charities and not to government, but I don’t see why, for example, large companies that make a lot of money due to selling goods and services to British people, in Britain, should not also pay a fair amount of tax on their profits.
Yet the law allows them to set up legal shell companies so that they can create a pretence that the profits were generated in a foreign country (who, as you say, have the right to set their own tax rates).
Take the land example. I have paid stamp duty when buying a house. This is a tax that we, as a democracy, have agreed to levy on this sort of transaction. We also charge capital gains tax (with an exemption for main homes), and many Tory voters with second homes will be liable for capital gains tax in this case, at some point.
Yet, British companies, buying and selling British Land, are able to use legal means to hide their capital gains from capital gains tax.
That is wrong. That means that you, as a taxpayer, are paying more tax to subsidise this avoidance of tax by big business (and also the extremely rich). Why would you possibly be in favour of it? What sort of self-hating nincompoop would you have to be?
My argument is that the law is wrong and should be changed to prevent these forms of avoidance. The law is only what we choose to make it.
“and many Tory voters with second homes will be liable for capital gains tax in this case, at some point.”
Do Labour and Lib Dems not have second homes?
Sean Fear @ 116 on minimising tax: surely “virtually everyone else” is on paye?
126 - I would advise you to read the Spectator to see where Conservative education policy might be headed. It sounds an awful lot more interesting than being wedded to Grammar schools.
Oh and on tax avoidance (or as those of us in the business call it, tax-efficient structuring) I can assure you that McBroon and HMRC have done nothing but try and stop tax avoidance, particularly in the last 5 years. My yellow books have doubled in size and there has been a raft of anti-avoidance legislation in the personal, corporate and VAT world. They will be trying again in a couple of weeks with a lot more legislation.
The trouble for Mcbroon is that Tax is just another cost for multi-nationals and so they are quite happy to pay people to LEGALLY structure around it.And we have been quite happy to do it. Net result..no increased tax for Labour to waste, lots of dividend income for the UK pension funds (previously ravaged by Labour) and lots of fees for us. All good stuff.
123. Very interesting report. So based on what we’re seeing in these by-elections, the coming local elections should see the Tories on 40%? Personally, I would expect them to be a bit up on that in a national campaign, lasting to two or three weeks. We know in by-elections the Conservatives are very vulnerable to Lib-Dem attacks, so to still be polling a projected share of 40% is good news, IMO. In any campaign, I have a feeling they could move up to 41%, possibley.
How does 28% for Labour and 24% for the Lib’s compare with the 2004 local elections?
I’ve had my bank account details hacked a couple of times, I don’t trust anything that is done solely online.
That’s before we get to the spectre of coercion that exists when the vote is not at a specific and controlled place.
Elections at the weekend, or over a few days, would be no worry.
[128] - I would expect that the rates would be different between the voters of the different parties and highest for the Tories. I wasn’t making a particular point by it, except that Sean Fear is a Tory, so it’s Tory voters that suffer from this sort of thing, whereas he may have been having some tribal right-wing reflex to protect the interests of the rich from Tax, or something.
Couldn’t understand why else someone would be in favour of the current level of tax avoidance.
133 - I agree weekend elections might be a way to go, maybe a combination of an extended timeframe and weekends. Say polls opening at midnight on Saturday and closing at 6pm on Sunday, giving a 42 hour period of voting.
116. Sean Fear, by the same token would you think it was right for those on benefits to organise their affairs so they could claim the most?
I’ve never understood why it needs to be a Thursday. A weekend would be better.
138, maybe it should stay as a Thursday, but give everyone the day off?
136. Absolutely if its legal and what they are entitled to. Why shouldnt they.
127 Well, I think jh has just answered all that. There is no law that can prevent individuals and companies structuring their affairs in as tax-effective a way as possible. Tolley’s Tax Guide is now twice the size it was in 1997, and could be doubled in size again, and people would find legitimate schemes of tax avoidance.
129 There are millions of self-employed and people who own small companies. And even people who are solely on PAYE can find ways of lawfully reducing their tax bill (for example, employing contractors who aren’t VAT registered).
re 67 Sean I think it’s not being defeatist, it’s being realistic. If you give people opportunity to defraud the syatem they will. How would you confirm identity for electronic voting? If it’s like HMRC then you will to have in your possession a userID, a password and a security code, one of which will only come to you by post - so open to the same methods of fraud as postal voting. It’s also very unwieldly as all those who leave their tax return until the last momement discover.
For those who think it’s terrible thing for a company to lower their tax bill in legal ways I would suggest reading Tim Worstall’s blog at http://www.timworstall.com
Basic points would be that taxes on companies are paid by individuals, by one or more of the customers in higher prices, workers in lower wages or shareholders in lower value/dividends.
Money not taxed from the comapny is earnt by individuals(and therefore taxed) at some point
141 - Also what would happen in the event of the Voting server crashing? Would the polling be extended? How would you audit the results?
136 I can hardly condemn people for claiming what they are lawfully entitled to. Sometimes, in a professional capacity, I advise them to.