Cons Lost Election 2015 Already Says Telegraph

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rinoa wrote: »

2010 was not a good election to win.

Whoever won would have had little alternative but to offer austerity for many years, the consequence of which would be unpopularity.

After Labour ran out of spending other peoples money, as they always do, the great british public were only likely to give the new Conservative government 6-12 months to sort it out, after which time they would then blame the new govt. for all our woes rather than the real culprits.

Red Ed is very clever at manipulating the blame on to Cameron, conveniently forgetting he was a high-up in the party that caused the carnage.

Still, the Conservatives are making good progress. You can't say they're courting popularity. They're tackling the problems Labour daren't touch and we'll be better off for that in the long term.

Will they win the next election? Almost certainly not.

But with the Cons. tackling all the welfare problems, Labour will be left with a golden scenario in 2015. Let's hope they don't waste it like they did in 1997.

You seem to have forgotten that all through those long years of opposition the Tories promised to match or exceed Labour's spending plans.

The difference between Tory and labour spending plans, even today, is minuscule. Particularly after Osbourne has been forced into so many U Turns over spending....

The current and much revised Tory Plan A- ends up with a balanced budget in much the same time as Labour's spending plans forecast at the last election. Ie, into the second term of parliament, not the first as the Tories originally promised.

So you can hardly give Osborne and Cameron any credit at all for tackling the supposed mess they inherited in any way different than Labour would have done.

In my opinion, the Tories have pushed back the recovery by several years unneccessarily, mostly thanks to ideological reasons and a very poor handling of the economy and public confidence. Real schoolboy mistakes on that front. Although Labour would have done no better, they'd just have made different mistakes.

But even that I could just about forgive them for, given how much I hate Labour's tendency towards social authoritarianism. Particularly as they still just about have time to fix it and drive a recovery before the next election, if they'd only swallow their pride and admit they were wrong.

What I will not forgive them for, and what will lose them the next election, is the current pandering to the racist right and the undoing of many years of moving to the centre.

Placating UKIP is a very dangerous game indeed, and risks not only the next election (there are far more votes in the middle than there are on the right) but also endangers the entire future of the country and our economy.

BertieUK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that all through those long years of opposition the Tories promised to match or exceed Labour's spending plans.

The difference between Tory and labour spending plans, even today, is minuscule. Particularly after Osbourne has been forced into so many U Turns over spending....

The current and much revised Tory Plan A- ends up with a balanced budget in much the same time as Labour's spending plans forecast at the last election. Ie, into the second term of parliament, not the first as the Tories originally promised.

So you can hardly give Osborne and Cameron any credit at all for tackling the supposed mess they inherited in any way different than Labour would have done.

In my opinion, the Tories have pushed back the recovery by several years unneccessarily, mostly thanks to ideological reasons and a very poor handling of the economy and public confidence. Real schoolboy mistakes on that front. Although Labour would have done no better, they'd just have made different mistakes.

But even that I could just about forgive them for, given how much I hate Labour's tendency towards social authoritarianism. Particularly as they still just about have time to fix it and drive a recovery before the next election, if they'd only swallow their pride and admit they were wrong.

What I will not forgive them for, and what will lose them the next election, is the current pandering to the racist right and the undoing of many years of moving to the centre.

Placating UKIP is a very dangerous game indeed, and risks not only the next election (there are far more votes in the middle than there are on the right) but also endangers the entire future of the country and our economy.

Hamish you are now reminding the Conservatives of what they had hoped was now all forgotton about and just a distant memory, that will only go to embarrase them. It likens to the comedian telling the same joke too often and hoping that you had forgotton the punch line.

They must remember that they are no different to anyone else what goes around comes around, and can hit you fair and square in the face.

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that all through those long years of oppositionthe Tories promised to match or exceed Labour's spending plans.

Well, it's very difficult in opposition to suggest you will offer less than the current govt. But even if you promise to match spending, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll spend it exactly the same way as Labour.

And here's what Cameron was saying back in 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3477235/David-Cameron-scraps-Labour-spending-plan-to-avoid-borrowing-bombshell.html

The Tory leader said: "Labour's economic mismanagement makes it vital for the long-term health of our economy that we set a new path for restraining the growth of spending. That means for the year 2010-2011, we need change, not more of the same. That means reducing planned government spending growth, and not matching Labour's spending plans.

"To be absolutely clear, to stop future tax rises, the growth rate of public spending in 2010-11 will have to be lower than the growth rate laid out by Labour. The growth rates of spending in the years beyond 2010-11, pencilled in by the Chancellor last year, are now also unsustainably high."

Not sure what you mean be 'pandering to the racist right' Haven't seen any evidence of that myself.

BertieUK

I read that so many of you that once stood 'Staunchly Loyal' to your parties, many of you for generations, are now thinking of abstaining from voting in the next election. Surely this is like cutting off your noses to spite your face.

I have certainly always voted for the Labour Party but with their present track record I am going to have to think again, and rethink who I think would do a better job for the country and not just for me, I like many other voters have simply voted with their hearts rather than their heads.

I hope that in the New Year we will see 'new policies' being struck, by all parties, rather than a debate into whose policies in the past did the most damage to the country.

coastline

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, it's very difficult in opposition to suggest you will offer less than the current govt. But even if you promise to match spending, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll spend it exactly the same way as Labour.

And here's what Cameron was saying back in 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3477235/David-Cameron-scraps-Labour-spending-plan-to-avoid-borrowing-bombshell.html

Cameron is saying all that after the financial crisis...Nov 18 2008 is the date of that article...
Here is what they were saying 3rd September 2007....not one mention of debt or the looming financial crisis..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Here is a link to the budget deficits since 1970...infact Labour inherited a rising deficit in the early 1970's from the Tories.
If you look its actually falling by 1978...yet this is a time when its all Labours fault for the world yet again...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/5260056945

BertieUK

coastline wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3477235/David-Cameron-scraps-Labour-spending-plan-to-avoid-borrowing-bombshell.html

Cameron is saying all that after the financial crisis...Nov 18 2008 is the date of that article...
Here is what they were saying 3rd September 2007....not one mention of debt or the looming financial crisis..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Here is a link to the budget deficits since 1970...infact Labour inherited a rising deficit in the early 1970's from the Tories.
If you look its actually falling by 1978...yet this is a time when its all Labours fault for the world yet again...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/5260056945

This will no doubt set the harnened economists of this Forum into a frenzy, as their belief in always blaming others is now put into doubt with these revelations and there is no escaping the facts as they were, not as they think they were. Thank you.

vivatifosi

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Election may be 2 years away but it is already lost - good article -Interesting - four main reasons why Cameron's Cons ,mathematically, cannot win the next general election 2015

1) Strong united Labour party
2) Cons failure to impress in the north
3) Ethnic voters also less than impressed
4) That 'marriage' row!

also encompassses boundary changes,ukip,split vote,Osbornes economic failure etc. Very good read!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html

Hmmmm.... The more I read this, the more I wonder whether they would have been happier if David Davis had been elected to lead the tories in 2005 instead of David Cameron.

BobQ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I agree, Ivader. Certainly Labour are committed to Europe and will eventually go into the Euro (not my "opinion", Peter Mandelson stated this on television). Just a matter of when, not if.

Thankfully, Labour did have the 5 key points that prevented us from going into the Euro during their government.

Since when has Peter Mandleson set party policy? I think the case for adopting the Euro is less now it has ever been.

BobQ

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Election may be 2 years away but it is already lost - good article -Interesting - four main reasons why Cameron's Cons ,mathematically, cannot win the next general election 2015

1) Strong united Labour party
2) Cons failure to impress in the north
3) Ethnic voters also less than impressed
4) That 'marriage' row!

also encompassses boundary changes,ukip,split vote,Osbornes economic failure etc. Very good read!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html

I still think this is too early to call an outcome. The article is largely aimed at core Tory supporters, reminding them that if they want to win the next election unity is needed. It also seems like a call for racist and anti-gay elements in the party to zip it for the greater good.

My view of the next election is that most elections are for the Government to lose and opposition to win. This one, for some of the reasons given, Labour could win by playing it safe. The Tories probably need to do something spectaular to win it.

The Tories are losing the confidence of their natural support base. We are not too far off some defections to UKIP in my view.

I did think in 2011 that Cameron was doing a good job, even managing to protect the unprincipled Clegg, but now he is clearly out of his depth and lacking any real policy base. Clegg is probably sorting out his escape route already, he is probably finished in UK politics. The Lib Dems will be decimated in my view, possibly only saved by desperate Tories voting tactically.

Milliband does not inspire confidence either of course but is looking better than popular wisdom thought. But he does not need to be great all the time the public think the Tories are not delivering.

Its in for a dig to blame Brown for every decision, but he was right on Euro and on his decision not to engage enthusiasticly with the LibDems. Whoever formed the Government would have had to do a lot of publicly unacceptable things (eg benefits reform) and would be blamed for it at the next election. All the time Cameron looks guilty of the charge that we are not all in it together, or of doing things unfairly, or of pursuing policies for dogma not need, he will suffer for them at the election.

BertieUK

vivatifosi wrote: »

Hmmmm.... The more I read this, the more I wonder whether they would have been happier if David Davis had been elected to lead the tories in 2005 instead of David Cameron.

Here you have an ideal leader, on paper that is, who was raised on a Council Estate in West London, having moved from a slum in Wandsworth, went on to have a Grammer School education, joined in with the Territorial Army for a while to earn money to retake his exams, before going to further his education at the University of Warwick gaining his masters Degree in Business....

...from there he went to Harvard University taking Advanced Management.

...from there he wrote about his business experience by writing a book "How To Turn Around A Company"...

Here is a man born of a single mother, brought up in a London Council Estate, who made good in life, and for me would outstrip both Cameron and Osbornes track records of achievements.

Could this man return to the party and turn around the unpopular views many of us have of the present Conservative leadership before it it too late?