Is Howard a Blair plant?
There still seems to be a blanket of stasis hanging over this election as far as public interest in it is concerned. There are only two posters up in the main high street of the Essex village where I live - both for the Tory candidate. And we've received no campaign literature from any of the parties - despite living in the fourth most marginal seat in the country. More on the local campaign when I get really bored and desperate - probably around Saturday 30th.
But there are some developments in the polls, where the Tories seem to have run out of steam somewhat after making most of the running since January. Three things seem to have knocked the wind out of their sails:
i) Immigration has only featured as the headline story on a couple of campaign days. This may be because there was so much focus on it in the run-up to the campaign that people have got rather bored of the issue for the moment.
ii) The Tories were unable to secure a decisive hit on Labour's economic record or its tax and spending plans going forward. This is partly because they held back details of their tax cut package when publishing their rather thin manifesto on Monday. This meant it was difficult for Labour to make a hit on their economic policies (and in the end Labour sounded pretty confused on this - saying on one hand that the Tories were going to make huge spending cuts and on the other, that they would raise taxes. Perhaps the idea was to give the impression that the Tories themselves were confused on the issue - in any case, it lowered the signal-to-noise ratio to the extent that no-one sounded sure of themselves on tax last week - and definitely not Charles Kennedy, who at least had the excuse of sleep deprivation due to recent fatherhood.)
iii) Michael Howard's unashamedly populist campaign may have stirred up more interest than he intended among left-wing voters, who probably found the general tone of the campaign distasteful - particularly the immigration scaremongering. This may ironically have helped shore up the Labour vote, leading to a drop in support for the Tories relative to Labour in the polls.
Many of these mistakes echo the failure of the 2001 Tory campaign under William Hague - and although the campaign looks more professional this time round, it may well be that this campaign ends up being to the Tories what 1987 was to Labour - a very professionally run operation which nonetheless delivered little in terms of advancing their electoral chances.
I don't completely buy this line of argument, however... as Bruce Anderson (not someone whose opinion I often endorse, by the way) says in today's Independent, this election is likely to be closer than the polls indicate. As far as I am aware, the Tories have done better in the actual outcome of the vote than in the opinion polls in every election since 1987. Pollsters assure us they've put systems in place to offset these effects but they persist. But even so, Michael Howard will know by this stage that it is most unlikely that he will be the next Prime Minister... and his campaign may have peaked way to early. Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby may have a shock to the system up his sleeve, and we would be wise not to forget the Australian experience. But there is just the chance that Howard is actually a Blair 'plant', and that New Labour has been manipulating Conservative leadership elections since 1997... think about it: Hague, followed by Duncan Smith, followed by Howard. Which free and sane political party in the developed world would choose such a string of bozos for leaders? Do let me know. And if I can find any more evidence for the 'Howard plant' conspiracy I'll post it up.
But there are some developments in the polls, where the Tories seem to have run out of steam somewhat after making most of the running since January. Three things seem to have knocked the wind out of their sails:
i) Immigration has only featured as the headline story on a couple of campaign days. This may be because there was so much focus on it in the run-up to the campaign that people have got rather bored of the issue for the moment.
ii) The Tories were unable to secure a decisive hit on Labour's economic record or its tax and spending plans going forward. This is partly because they held back details of their tax cut package when publishing their rather thin manifesto on Monday. This meant it was difficult for Labour to make a hit on their economic policies (and in the end Labour sounded pretty confused on this - saying on one hand that the Tories were going to make huge spending cuts and on the other, that they would raise taxes. Perhaps the idea was to give the impression that the Tories themselves were confused on the issue - in any case, it lowered the signal-to-noise ratio to the extent that no-one sounded sure of themselves on tax last week - and definitely not Charles Kennedy, who at least had the excuse of sleep deprivation due to recent fatherhood.)
iii) Michael Howard's unashamedly populist campaign may have stirred up more interest than he intended among left-wing voters, who probably found the general tone of the campaign distasteful - particularly the immigration scaremongering. This may ironically have helped shore up the Labour vote, leading to a drop in support for the Tories relative to Labour in the polls.
Many of these mistakes echo the failure of the 2001 Tory campaign under William Hague - and although the campaign looks more professional this time round, it may well be that this campaign ends up being to the Tories what 1987 was to Labour - a very professionally run operation which nonetheless delivered little in terms of advancing their electoral chances.
I don't completely buy this line of argument, however... as Bruce Anderson (not someone whose opinion I often endorse, by the way) says in today's Independent, this election is likely to be closer than the polls indicate. As far as I am aware, the Tories have done better in the actual outcome of the vote than in the opinion polls in every election since 1987. Pollsters assure us they've put systems in place to offset these effects but they persist. But even so, Michael Howard will know by this stage that it is most unlikely that he will be the next Prime Minister... and his campaign may have peaked way to early. Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby may have a shock to the system up his sleeve, and we would be wise not to forget the Australian experience. But there is just the chance that Howard is actually a Blair 'plant', and that New Labour has been manipulating Conservative leadership elections since 1997... think about it: Hague, followed by Duncan Smith, followed by Howard. Which free and sane political party in the developed world would choose such a string of bozos for leaders? Do let me know. And if I can find any more evidence for the 'Howard plant' conspiracy I'll post it up.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home