Posted on 05/08/2010 11:55:26 AM PDT by Chet 99
General Election 2010: David Cameron has had this coming to him
Dave Cameron abandoned conservatism five years ago because he believed it would get his party elected. It didn't.
By Simon Heffer
Published: 4:53PM BST 07 May 2010
Dave had to fight a widely despised Prime Minister leading a Government incompetent and destructive on a scale unseen in living memory. Seldom has there been a softer target; but seldom has one been missed so unnecessarily. With just 36 per cent of the vote, the Tories stood almost still since 2005. They are now on their knees to their other enemy, the Lib Dems.
-snip-
It should not have come to this. As I rang round Tory MPs some were incandescent at the conduct not just of the campaign, but of the whole anti-core vote strategy that has alienated many natural Tory voters. George Osborne, both as campaign co-ordinator and also as an inept shadow chancellor, was quickly selected as the scapegoat. But let us not forget that the roots of this problem go back to 2005. The party has chosen to mimic and validate the policies of its opponents, with the result that the public found little to choose between the main parties. This was exemplified in the television debates, in which the leaders fell over themselves to agree not only with any contention put to them by the public, but even with each other.
And not only was there no real choice, with many people feeling disfranchised, or driven to vote for fringe parties; there was no attempt in the campaign to address in depth the issues that really matter to so many of our people.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Cameron hired Anita Dunn to advise his campaign.
Nothing else need be said.
There is a lesson in there somewhere, if only we can dig it out.
bookmark
Given the three major parties, and the fact there isn't a party with seats to the right of Cameron, I'm not sure what difference he could have made. Sure, he's not very conservative, but NO ONE voted for Labour or the LibDems because Cameron wasn't conservative enough.
The fact of the matter is the clear majority of the voters in the UK actually want as much socialism as they can get. This is compounded with the problems that come with multiculturalism. Cameron is about as far to the left as he can be and without actually being in Labour. He lost no votes on his right because of it. Seems to me, he - and the Tories - are in a lose or lose really big scenario. He managed the former, not the later, which I guess is a bit of a victory.
And yet, Cameron lost no votes to his right. None, zip, zippo, nada. There's not a party to the right of the Tories that have even a single seat in Parliament. The fact of the matter is the Conservatives have become a permanent minority party in the UK. No one voted for Labour or the LibDems because Cameron had Anita Dunn advising him.
Cameron tried to get people who were center-left to vote for him because there just aren't enough people center-left to give him a majority. He couldn't get it done. It's not that surprising.
One really big problem is Labour basically sweeps the board in Scotland and Wales. The Tories actually have close to majority support in England. This situation could lead to the eventual breakup of the UK.
Pandering to the left, “independents”, “moderates” and other brainless twits while betraying conservatives and the real STRENGTH and HONOR of the nation. Seems to me someone latched on to this brilliant strategy in the US a while ago. Can’t quite recall who or how it worked out.
So, I guess you could call him a CINO. Conservative in name only. Hahahaha.
Labour is your typical big government leftist party similar to the democrats in this country. Libdems are actually a combination of two parties the Liberals and Social Democratic. The liberals were roughly equivalent to the Libertarian party in the US and the Social Democrats were basically socialists. A strange combination! The closest thing I could think of in the US would be if the Libertarian party and Ralph Naders group joined forces. They are general considered a centrist party. Although they are farther to the left than Labour on some issues and farther right than the conservatives on others.
Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalists) are not Separatists.
The Scottish National Party are Separatists, but they only get between 30 and 40 percent of the vote max. Which means they cannot win a referendum on independence.
The SNP are a UK version of the Parti Quebecois, loud, obnoxious, socialists, who cannot deliver on the reason for their existence.
He’s a tool for the bankers. Just like his opponents.
I don't think you realize the logical disconnect of your statement. No one voted for Labour or the LibDems because David Cameron wasn't conservative enough. Their is no conservative answer for the UK, because the UK is no longer a conservative country. It's a solidly socialist country.
If Cameron had run on a platform of privatizing health care, cutting social services and lowering taxes on the people who help provide capital formation, he would have been lucky to get 25% of the vote, not the 38% of the he managed.
Cameron gained 97 seats, but still was 20 seats short. The socialist got 258 seats, and the profoundly socialists got 25 seats. The balance of Parliament went to parties that are WELL to the left of the LibDems.
It's not Margaret Thatchers UK anymore.
I don't know what Wales brings to the bargain but Scotland brings a *whole* lotta oil.
they bring sunckadigesturmplaghtugjfimlkew
Choirs and beastiality? (ducks)
Absoultely true. I was stationed in the UK for a brief period of time in the 80s - Thatcher's Golden Era. We recently went back, and I couldn't believe how much the country had transformed. London could easily be a city in in SW Asia. It makes Berkeley or the East Village or West Hollywood look tame. It's a completely different city and country.
The north has more "traditional" people, but these are also the same people who are the most rabidly socialist, at least economically.
That's the difference between the UK and the States, IMHO. Many of the areas of the UK that are traditional (like the Midwest in the US), are the most reliably socialist. This of course is antithetical to the US Midwest, where people are far more self-reliant. It's odd.
A better analogy would be the "traditionalist" folks in Michigan, western Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. who STILL vote Dem election after election.
Labour's strongest areas in England proper are the old industrial/rust belt in the north, and parts of inner London. Scotland traditionally votes to the Left as does (to a slightly lesser extent this election) Wales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.