weltweit
Well-Known Member
Cameron is a tosser, but he has the slight advantage over Milliband in that he has at least been the PM ...
Why the lib-dems are shit
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh, is there any evidence for that? I remember Kinnock whooping it up at a rally before the vote as if he had it in the bag, "were all right" etc I don't think it went down well.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
How is that helping the tories in the polls
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Is it your argument that voters didn't change their minds between the two?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Is your argument that they did because of sheffield?
yes.
yes.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
It was a long time ago but that is certainly the impression I had at the time.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm asking you if it is your argument that this is the case.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I am not making an argument, I think I have been quite clear thanks.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Argument=case= point.
Yeah, you're right.
Yeah, you're right.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Are you sure there will be a labour majority butchersapron? I don't want these cunts to get back in but you never know...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes i am.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Fair enough. my guess is a lot of people who used to vote labour now won't vote at all tbh, so the people who are doing all right and will vote Tory may turn out to vote and a lot of others will end up staying at home. Not that I blame them because I probably won't be voting either.
I reckon labour will probably get back in but I wouldn't want to put money on it
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Most people who normally vote labour but didn't in 2010 will be voting labour this time. Motivated voter. It's over.
miktheword
Well-Known Member
yep, both that , and 'it was the sun wot won it' was also a myth debunked 20 years back .
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ut-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html
The press. 'It was The Sun wot won it', boasted Britain's highest-selling tabloid newspaper immediately after the result; and, in his resignation speech, Neil Kinnock said that 'the Conservative-supporting press has enabled the Conservative Party to win yet again'.
We found no support for this theory. Among readers of pro-Tory tabloids, support for the Conservatives fell by three points during the election campaign, and it also fell by one point among readers of pro-Tory broadsheets. Just as perversely, support for the Tories rose slightly among readers of the pro-Labour Daily Mirror. It also rose among people who did not read any newspaper.
This may look like good news for Labour. But there is a sting in the tail. Since 1992, much of the traditional Tory press has turned its fire on John Major's government. Some Labour supporters have hailed this as a decisive change. If the press failed to help the Tories in 1992, however, it must be equally unlikely to do much for Labour in 1996 or 1997.
Kinnock and Major. Many commentators suggested that the voters took a personal dislike to Mr Kinnock, but warmed to Mr Major. As the Sun put it, 'voters just did not believe Mr Kinnock was fit to run Britain'. Or, in the Daily Express's words, 'it was John Major the voters knew they could trust'.
Throughout the 1992 election campaign, Mr Major's personal standing remained much higher than Mr Kinnock's. And the data from our interviews suggests that the Labour leader's standing deteriorated slightly between 1987 and 1992. Voters saw Mr Kinnock as more 'extreme' than Mr Major, less inclined to 'look after all classes' and less 'capable of being a strong leader'.
But do party leaders make a difference to people's votes? The findings showed that they do, but only a little. Some 54 per cent of 'Tory identifiers' - people who normally think of themselves as Tories regardless of how they vote in any election - rated Mr Major highest of the three party leaders, whereas only 36 per cent of 'Labour identifiers' similarly rated Mr Kinnock. 'Identifiers' who did not rate their own party leader highly were more likely than other 'identifiers' to desert the party of their primary loyalty.
But the effects were not enough to make a decisive difference to the election result. Mr Major's appeal as leader, compared with Mr Kinnock's, was probably worth no more than one percentage point to the Tory share of the vote.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
If you don't believe the electorate are affected by the behaviour of those who would lead us, you are free to hold that view, I disagree.
Last edited:
Did you steal this post from Johnny Canuck?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yes!
But seriously, if the leader's performances were unimportant why would their parties agonise so much as they do about things like their performances at PMQs, at party conferences, or out on the stump.
I do think Milliband is a disadvantage for Labour. I think there will be a proportion of voters who might vote Labour who will be dissuaded because of him. How many, or if it will make a significant difference to the result of the election I don't know.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, what do the polls indicate?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
You would probably be in a better position to explain that than I would.
of course we are. But not by single issues of presentation like the duffel coat / mis-fired victory speech. People don't vote on that shit.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Surely those incidents are a part of the impression people make of those who would lead us.
I don't know the stats but I remember at the time ( I would have been quite young ) thinking Kinnock had lost it for Labour with his premature victory posturing.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
People don't vote for the Prime Minister.
Similar threads
- Poll
