In an ideal world everyone would use logic and base choice on ability and policy. In the real world we all are totally biased by how others appear to us and frequently make our minds up about others within seconds of meeting. With politicians it would help if they actually made great speeches spelling out clearly what they stand for, rather than being careful not to alienate everyone with the same "hard-working family" soundbites. I look on it as desperately trying not to lose elections/voters rather than positively trying to win them. In the modern world, I admire Obama for attempting to change the status quo and fix the messes of others - even if he's failed so far largely. I'll ignore the apparent World Watergateisms popping up now, as I'm just as convinced they are all at it and in on it, albeit possibly to lesser degrees. Maybe.

Some politicians do still make great speeches. It's not their fault that only about 30 seconds of it (or less) will appear on the television news.

 

You're right about politicians being afraid of alienating voters though. There is also a fear of saying anything even remotely against party policy because they know it will be portrayed in the press as a major row, massive split etc. The current coalition ought to help reduce that fear. We have seen some Lib Dems (even Clegg recently) express disagreement with Tory policies. An intelligent press would take the opportunity that there are always disagreements within governments whether a single party or two or more parties. After all, it would be hard enough to find two people who agree on everything, never mind a few hundred people. Most of the time MPs will vote for a policy because they think it is in the interests of the government. Otherwise governments would struggle to achieve anything. That's the way it works. Sadly, we have the Excess and the Wail and they won't even begin to try to explain that to their readers.

The extent to which image is so important has always dismayed me. If they had been subjected to the same scrutiny then war leaders David Lloyd George (a womaniser) and Churchill (borderline alcoholic) would never have got the job. Our greatest post-war PM, Clement Attlee (boring) would also have missed out.

 

I don't think people care about image that much as long as someone is doing a good job

 

Boris Johnson is the most popular politician in the country, adored by millions but he is also a serial adulterer who holds borderline racist views and conspired with career criminal best friend Darius Guppy to have a journalist beaten up but the guy is worshipped across the country

 

Alan Clark was loved across the UK as a likeable rogue when he slept with more women than 99% of the country have

If anything surely Boris shows that image is hugely important? The fact he's so universally known as a comic twit overrides all the other things in most people's minds.

I know, I never said anything about self-identification! It was just the first term that came to mind.

Possibly if the only reason people are currently staying up north is because it's not financially viable to live in London, but in my mind that's vastly outweighed by the potential benefits to Londoners struggling to get by.

 

I don't really see how the Living Wage could be used against Labour up north anyway. It's hardly like people will say "oh well they're clearly biased towards the south, I'll vote Conservative instead!".

 

But that's not the danger - again, the danger is that those voters just stay at home (or some will possibly drift to other left parties, maybe even the Lib Dems since you can bet they'll do their usual electioneering and pose as saviours of the poor and the north despite the past 5 years), and the Conservatives win by default.

 

 

The extent to which image is so important has always dismayed me. If they had been subjected to the same scrutiny then war leaders David Lloyd George (a womaniser) and Churchill (borderline alcoholic) would never have got the job. Our greatest post-war PM, Clement Attlee (boring) would also have missed out.

 

I don't think it's so much image per se, I think it's more being able to speak in a way which people actually understand, and which people trust. Take Vince Cable, polls still put him as one of the most popular politicians (even as the Lib Dems' ratings have plunged), but he is pretty boring and has a somewhat homely appearance - the reason he's popular is because in interviews he actually gives straight "yes" or "no" answers (obviously it's quite depressing that just giving straight answers to questions is exceptional, but sadly, in this age of politicians giving evasive waffle-full substance-free answers, it is), doesn't pretentiously speak like he's in a university Politics seminar, and people can relate to him. Same for Nigel Farage to some extent, he hardly has Blair levels of charisma, the reason for his popularity is he's seen as "normal".

 

I don't know a ton about Clement Attlee, but from what I've read, even though he was boring, I think he was seen as honest, plain-speaking and down-to-earth. I think someone like that could still become prime minister today. I mean, even Brown, totally uncharismatic though he was, was very popular when he first became PM until the whole "election that never was" gave him the reputation as shameless and untrustworthy.

in Vince Cable's case, being right when everyone else is living in some strange rose-tinted universe oblivious to forthcoming devastation doesn't hurt either. A man so dangerous to the rich and powerful that they tried to stitch him up shortly before being hoisted on their own petards. Oh how I continue to laugh at the rolling soap opera on those dishing out dirt on others...

It's a fair point with Brown, he was seen as a steady pair of hands in the first few months and I still think the election would have been a lot different had they cast him as a dour Scotsman getting on with his job.

 

Brown was doomed from the start - presumably Blair timed his exit to perfection and within a couple of months there was the bank run on Northern Rock in September 2007 and he dithered about calling an election, then fell behind in the polls and never really recovered. Maybe it would have been a waste of time having a snap election in November '07, but he would have garnered a great deal more respect than he has from his frankly rather dire premiership.

I think it's investing Blair with a BIT too much omniscience to say he timed his exit to perfection, given Tom Watson et al had basically co-ordinated to try and force him out the September before - which they could well have done had Brown stamped on his fingers. The June resignation was a compromise.

Also, the issue with the November election wasn't so much that Brown wouldn't have won - he would have done certainly - but that the pressure from fellow Labour MPs would've forced him to resign had any Labour MPs lost their seats in what would've been seen as a vanity project election solely so Brown could have a mandate. Which I think reveals a bit of short-term thinking on the part of some MPs at the time, although it's quite difficult to argue that with an MP that might have lost their job at the time.

Also, the issue with the November election wasn't so much that Brown wouldn't have won - he would have done certainly - but that the pressure from fellow Labour MPs would've forced him to resign had any Labour MPs lost their seats in what would've been seen as a vanity project election solely so Brown could have a mandate. Which I think reveals a bit of short-term thinking on the part of some MPs at the time, although it's quite difficult to argue that with an MP that might have lost their job at the time.

Personally I can't see how that would have been much of a problem given that for us to maintain any form of majority we would have lost at most 10% of our MPs - and the lack of a Portillo moment in 2010 suggests that none of them would have been particularly big names.

Personally I can't see how that would have been much of a problem given that for us to maintain any form of majority we would have lost at most 10% of our MPs - and the lack of a Portillo moment in 2010 suggests that none of them would have been particularly big names.

That's with the benefit of hindsight though - and even one loss was too many for a lot of people in the planning stage given they saw it as a potentially unnecessary one just for the sake of giving Brown a formalised legitimacy he didn't need. The likes of Ian Austin et al, who were close to Brown, were on quite delicate majorities as well - even if he did go on to win in 2010, they had no way of necessarily knowing that'd happen at the time.

Also, I've just seen the details of Labour's "living wage" thing. A gap of £1 between London and the rest of the country isn't AS drastic as I feared, although I still think there's a risk of opponents saying they're screwing over other parts of the country. More worrying is this whole thing about making it optional for employers to pay it. They should just say that everyone has to pay it, no excuses and no exceptions; what they're currently saying just looks like a confused muddle and I doubt it's going to cut through with the public. The reason the energy prize freeze had "resonance" is because it was simple and unequivocal, whereas this defintiely isn't.

Edited November 3, 201311 yr by Danny

Admittedly I'm doing a Craig here and using anecdotal evidence, but a lot of times if I've ever had a conversation on the living wage with people who aren't especially political, they will counter that it'd be difficult for a lot of small businesses on the edge to cope with it without help in some way. I think taking the nuance out just to give it more cut through would backfire - not only for the massive backlash from small business that it'd cause, but also from a lot of people who would agree with the principle of a living wage but also acknowledge the difficulty of imposing it.

Admittedly I'm doing a Craig here and using anecdotal evidence, but a lot of times if I've ever had a conversation on the living wage with people who aren't especially political, they will counter that it'd be difficult for a lot of small businesses on the edge to cope with it without help in some way. I think taking the nuance out just to give it more cut through would backfire - not only for the massive backlash from small business that it'd cause, but also from a lot of people who would agree with the principle of a living wage but also acknowledge the difficulty of imposing it.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it. The problem with making something nuanced and putting loads of caveats on it is that you might not offend anyone but you also don't impress anyone either. "Vote Labour and everyone's guaranteed a decent wage" is just a much stronger message than "Vote Labour and there's a chance some people might get a decent wage if we ask your bosses nicely enough". Making all employers pay one might cause more offence and scare stories about it hammering business and costing jobs (though only from the same type of people who said the same scaremongering crap about the minimum wage in the first place, and I personally don't think most people would agree with it), but people would atleast pay attention to it, whereas what they announced today is so bland and timid that most people will switch off if they hear about it on the news and nobody will remember it by the end of the week.

Edited November 3, 201311 yr by Danny

Maybe, but I doubt it. The problem with making something nuanced and putting loads of caveats on it is that you might not offend anyone but you also don't impress anyone either. "Vote Labour and everyone's guaranteed a decent wage" is just a much stronger message than "Vote Labour and there's a chance some people might get a decent wage if we ask your bosses nicely enough". Making all employers pay one might cause more offence and scare stories about it hammering business and costing jobs (though only from the same type of people who said the same scaremongering crap about the minimum wage in the first place, and I personally don't think most people would agree with it), but people would atleast pay attention to it, whereas what they announced today is so bland and timid that most people will switch off if they hear about it on the news and nobody will remember it by the end of the week.

 

Exactly, as with the energy price freeze labour are all fur coat and no knickers

 

On the outside things sound good ideas but when you delve deep and scratch below the surface the flaws and confusion are there for everyone to see

 

 

Exactly, as with the energy price freeze labour are all fur coat and no knickers

 

surley that leaves you all cosy and warm and ready for action? :lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24799507

 

;)

It was doing similar things in 2010 and we've just lost three and a half years. Yay.

Exactly, as with the energy price freeze labour are all fur coat and no knickers

 

On the outside things sound good ideas but when you delve deep and scratch below the surface the flaws and confusion are there for everyone to see

What flaws and confusion? Danny's talking about how easily the policy cuts through in terms of simplicity. I'd have thought if anything you'd have appreciated the aim of NOT having a compulsory living wage but instead offering tax breaks to small businesses for doing them.

It was doing similar things in 2010 and we've just lost three and a half years. Yay.

 

The Lib Dems have held back the recovery

 

We wanted to cut the tax rate from 50% to 40% and slash corporation tax by a further 5p in the £ than we have done but the Lib Dems kicked off about both, claiming it was 'unfair' when infact businesses and entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country

 

Were we allowed our full conservative agenda re tax, the recovery would have started earlier and be even quicker