3) Policy, Policy, Policy

Ok so in the aftermath of a far better tv debate performance by all three leaders(which I thought Brown won, but polls go for Cameron or Clegg)it is safe to say that this is a close run election. It really could go anyway, but it is looking like heading towards a hung parliament. Which would be thoroughly interesting. In fact, you think this whole thing would be interesting, the closest an election has been in years - we can actually legitimately say we have a three party system, who would have thought that 6 months ago. And yet I still find myself under-whelmed. It is not due to the race, it is due to the substance within it. The title of this blog is Disenchanged Voter, and I still remain disenchanted. This is because the policies in no way grab my interest. When I am choosing my countries leader, when I am watching televised debates, when I am reading manifestos I want to see some proper ideological arguments. This is not what I have seen so far...I have seen Brown become more centre...I have seen Cameron avoid Thatcher at all costs and basically being the most ashamed Tory I have ever seen...and Clegg, Trident...really? Do we care? I want to see some proper Keynes vs Hayek...some Smith vs Marx...some Locke vs Hobbes!

So the best way to stop the rise of Nick Clegg is via 'Policy, Policy, Policy'. He clearly is weak on this, the man is pushing Trident for God's sake. Vince Cable was his go to guy on such matters, the substance behind the show - but even his economic ideas have been called into question recently. A strong idea on policy that is passionately put across to the electorate will frisk them into a frenzy. To be honest, it doesn't even have to be specific policy; a calling to unite the masses and change the system would do it for Brown (though this would be hard to pull off as he has been the system for a long time now). Cameron could call for economic change, re-envigorate our economy into the capitalist power house it once was. These are callings that people love. Admit that you are either 'left' or 'right' and take those people with you.

Tonight I saw Cameron put on a strong show against Jeremy Paxman in his interview. I was actually geniunely impressed. He seems to be throwing in 'Big Society' at every opportunity - clearly his catchphrase, not sure it is one the people will follow along with but at least it is there. The problem is, the Big Society doesn't say anything. Essentially this is the traditional argument that we need less government intervention, a smaller state. However, Cameron being so fantastically ashamed of his own actual beliefs (either that or doesn't believe he can convince the British public he is right, always good in a leader) has decided that he will hide what he means behind this Big Society tag. The idea is that a rolling back of the state will allow private sector to come in and hopefully make us more efficient. A smaller state, however, suggests job cuts to civil servants - which is never a winner in such a poor economy. So he is trying to phrase it in a way that makes us think it is a job creation policy - which I am sure he hopes it will be, but in the long term not the short term. Whether you agree or disagree with this is not the point. The point is that Cameron is being himself, a PR man, he is trying to manipulate his own ideas to fit what we want. It is good campaigning...but it is bad politics. Democracy is about the person we want representing us, not us being tricked into someone saying something they are not. It is time that Cameron came out and forcefully, passionately said what he feels (much like Boris does) and try to convince us he is correct. I am sorry I have focussed on blaming Cameron here, but lets see if Brown can take my words into account when he faces Paxman next week.

2) Electrify the electorate!

And the second debate is over. I made myself clear in my last blog last time so won’t go in too much depth. What I will say is this: It was great to see them actually debating, it was great to see Brown more calm and collected, it was great to see Cameron try to be the strong leader he can be (accept over free eye tests, he blew it then!), and it was great to see Clegg rub against them on a level playing field. I say level playing field, because of though Clegg was in the last debate, he was the man outside the pack (whether this worked for him or against him is a different matter). His last performance put him in the running and he entered this debate with a chance. I personally believe Brown won, it was a great effort by him. In my last blog I suggested he could never win, but he broke out the policies and right or wrong the substance shone through when the other two were trying to be ‘TV Leaders’. Overall though, a similar performance from Clegg and huge improvements from the other two – it is hard to decide the winner.

In my last blog I did the first of a three point plan to beat Mr. Clegg. Last time I focussed on the debate, now the second one has gone and a week till the next, it’s time to focus on campaigning. Brown, Cameron and Clegg have been doing the usual darting around; trying to get to hospitals, barracks and schools to get amongst ‘the people’. This is always a good idea, but relating to the people has to be done right:

2) Campaigning on Catchphrases

Whisking a storm around you is particularly important for David Cameron; he is the one that will benefit the most from high turnout. So far it is Clegg being likened to Obama and the people’s response to him is becoming known as Clegg-mania. Clegg, like Obama, does have the advantage of being the underdog, where as Cameron has been leading the pack the whole way. Britain loves an underdog; this is bad news for Cameron. He will need to whisk the hysteria away from Clegg and on to him, and he will have to do it from the top. Who likes the top? Just look at how much we all seemingly hate the bankers! Well the only way around this is too drive a message home that the people can like. Now I personally think that politicians should say strong policy messages based on the party values, but this probably won’t win the election will it? Cameron has always been pragmatic; he knows how to do it, now is the time he does it. He needs to take into account what his audience wants to hear, he needs to take into account Tory history, find a balance and then find policies to drill in. The manifesto is out, let’s hope they did this before then; it’s time to drill home the manifesto. How do you do that? It is time for great rhetoric.

We love Churchill, we loved Blair and we loved Thatcher! Well don’t know about loving Blair or Thatcher but we elected them enough times. We used to mock Blair’s catchphrases all the time but let’s face it, “education, education, education” is a winner. And Thatcher – “This lady is not for turning” – ok not during an election but still, very quotable; how about “get on your bike!” (ok, again not right, this was Tebbit, but come on it rhetoric we love!) Cameron and Brown can both get out there, with these bold statements on the things that matter and win us over. Obama had “Yes we can!” Obama had “Change we can believe in!” What do we have, “Vote for Change” is the Tory attempt – what PM out of office hasn’t said that. It doesn’t make us believe like Obama made so many. Rhetoric can excite us like no other...it is time to see it. Both Brown and Cameron can get out and do that. Yes, Brown is a man about statistics, but if he can somehow ‘sex’ them up, then he can have a catchphrase we can all follow. The politicians who win us over are those with concise, bold statements we can repeat time and time again, those with phrases we can shove on a bumper stick and those with statements we can’t stop talking about – even if we are mocking. Cameron tried, he failed – get a better one. Brown hasn’t got one at all. Nor has Clegg – this is how you beat him at the polls and stop Clegg-mania.

Three-point-plan to end Cleggs' rise

So looks like I could be eating my words from my last two blogs...in fact if Clegg does win I will, I will print off those blogs and eat the whole thing. I just can’t believe how it has happened. It is generally accepted that campaigning doesn’t change votes, sadly bad campaigning does. Lib Dem has risen in popularity so rapidly since the first leaders debate that there are actually people saying they might win (most aren’t). How has this happened?

I am not actually anti-Lib Dem, I just thought they were a nothing party with no chance; now they have a huge chance, but only if Labour and Conservatives keep handing it to them. I personally think an Obama-esque story of them coming from so far behind to steal the show would be great for British politics. There is a huge difference though; Obama did it on the back of a campaign trail that whisked not just the nation but the world alongside him. Nick Clegg has so far done it on the back of an ok TV debate, which he didn’t exactly steal the show in, but he did win. Before and since then he hasn’t exactly been the most exciting politician in the world. The fact he has had this huge rise, is not due to his campaigning, but due to the poor campaigning of the other two parties...over the next three blogs I will layout a three point plan to reverse this, they go in ascending order of importance.

1) Learn from mistakes and improve – a.k.a beat Clegg at his own game

Clegg’s popularity grew after winning the first leaders debate; stop his momentum by winning the next two. You might say this is easier said than done, not like they weren’t trying to win last time, but Clegg’s performance wasn’t stand out...he won, just. Ok, so Brown is never going to be the most exciting man in the world on camera. Even though Brown is still quite young for a Prime Minster (Harold Macmillan was 63 when he took office), up against Clegg and Cameron he might as well actually be dead, and he certainly looks it.

However, Cameron is a PR man; he should have some media charisma about him – time to show it off! If he learns from his mistakes he can easily make up for his less than average performance last time, which resulted in Clegg’s average performance seeming like a great performance, The public having seemingly responded well to, what I saw as, a very superficial attempt to be the electorates best friend. The highlight of this was Clegg quite clearly reading the names of all the people who had asked questions. It is important that Cameron takes this on board, but does not go over the top. Cameron seemingly had the same idea with his constant anecdotes of ‘people he had met’, which has become the biggest point of mockery of the whole debate. He will need to cut his anecdotes down, but not get rid completely – otherwise it will be too obvious – and not too blatantly incorporate Cleggs’ ‘best friend’ charm. I suggest taking on Clegg’s way of speaking directly to the person who asked the question, use their name and look at them when speaking; talk into the camera, not the audience, during the introductory and summary speeches; there are more people and more votes watching on the television.

Brown is not completely without hope. Although yes he does look like a zombie who has been clearly weathered by his brief time as PM, he is the only experienced candidate. He is also the person most likely to suffer from Cleggs’ rise – a second left-wing party being popular can’t be good for Labour. Although, let’s not dismiss that Clegg is stealing disenchanted Labour votes from the Tories. Brown needs to put up good performances in the next leaders debates. He is never going to be electrifying, but he can play the game. The debates will have to be less important for Brown, in fact their existence has almost destined him to lose the debate – there is no way he will win them, but can he come second? Perhaps, and he could do it at the expense of Clegg. It is time Brown made this a debate. His problem last time was immediately responding to Cameron, “David Cameron just said this, it is wrong because of that...” He would immediately get cut off so we could see Cameron’s response and could not get his point across. This time he should say “Labour’s idea is this, Cameron just said this, and this is wrong because of that...” Convincing people Labour policies are correct is the easiest thing in the world, everyone likes fairness, show them how you are (if you are) the party for fairness. The most important thing Brown must remember is not to rise to the Clegg challenge. Don’t go on the attack to show Labour is the only legitimate ‘left’ party. Ignore Clegg, freeze him out – show it that way. Only argue with Cameron, every point should be about how Labour are not Conservatives – how they are stopping this country being Conservative. Focus on the unpopular right wing policies of the Tories, which Cameron has amazingly allowed us to forget. What happened to Europe? What happened to immigration? What happened to heritage? What happened to benefits? I know these are hard to argue for during the recession, but if Labour values are argued well they are hard to debate against. Especially for someone like David Cameron who is such a self-loathing Tory, afraid to stand up for the traditions of his party. House of Lords reform, a slightly different cancer policy to the Tories and anti-expenses; are these really the policies we want to choose our Government on? Cameron will have to respond, he may do this badly or well, but it essentially shows Clegg is just the other person with not much to say on any policies that matter.

Essentially the leaders’ debates have changed the way our politics works, sadly how campaigning works as well (explored further in my next blog). With the next one coming up, both Cameron and Brown need to up their game; show that Clegg is no Obama and show the nation what their true values are and what our choices are – a socialist Labour Party or a one-nation Conservative party.

Elections make me cynical...

I am sorry but having witnessed the release of the three main parties (and the Green Party's) election manifesto's and watched the leaders debate on ITV all I can say is, they will never listen to us.

The debate between the leaders, to be fair, did involve a certain amount of back and forth, most of which was between Brown and Cameron. Clegg will be reported to have won the debate but frankly, he just looked like the geeky kid who hadn't been asked to dance. He gave valid, good responses and did well to attack Cameron without chumming up to Brown, but Cameron just shrugged him off time and time again which perfectly showed how little he mattered. He is not going to Prime Minister and was only on the stage to appease people - they gave the baby their bottle, it just had no milk in it.

My main problem with the debate was not the debate itself, but everything that has and will surround it. For instance, the results of the debate are just ridiculously misleading...ITV instant results said that Nick Clegg got 46%, David Cameron got 26% and Gordon Brown got 20%. Now I am wondering what happened to the other 8% but that’s beside the point. The point is, as I said above, Nick Clegg is not going to be the next Prime Minister. Who ever took those polls will be horribly wrong.

Even in this ‘digital election’ era we cannot see the correct answer appear in any polls. The amazingly fun and addictive website Slapometer (which allows you to vote by slapping the three party leaders in the face during the debates) has even failed provide the correct answer. The final results on Slapometer for Debate One were Clegg 12%, Brown 38% and Cameron 50% (a number he almost certainly will not reach in the actual election). In this perfect and pure form of direct democracy Clegg is down as winner again! I am sorry but this just goes to show us the flaw in democracy. Just like these results were wrong, so were the many people commenting on #leadersdebate; the twitter link created so people could bitch about what was being said in the debates. They were not wrong in their opinions; they were just wrong that people cared.

One of the main things that have made me most cynical about this election is the increasing idea that social media will give voice to the people, it won't. The Labour manifesto even claimed that they would put bills online for public scrutiny. People shall scrutinise, they shall not listen. The perfect example was the much debated (everywhere except the House of Commons) Digital Economy Bill. Twitter ran rampant with debate about this, did they listen...nope, the Bill passed! And this evening Twitter saw much of the same activity...thousands of people rushing to comment on the debates...most of whom hated either Brown or Cameron and could not say a bad word about Lib Dems’ Mr. Clegg...sadly the world won't listen...he won't win.

Apparently They're Off....

So after the huge news frenzy today it is safe to say that we all know the election officially kicked off. A couple of news broadcasters, including the BBC officially started the race with the exhilarating headline, “And they're off!” Sadly I am not so sure that this will be the most exciting election of all time. The news reporters are desperately trying to Jazz it up with ideas that it is impossible to tell who will win at this stage. Fair play to them for this, forgetting that it is obviously great for their ratings if we do all think the election is exciting, at least it might get people to turn up. The fact is that we don’t know the outcome; it is yet to be decided whether the Tories will have a majority, or a slightly less majority. Of course, the slightly less will mean ‘hung parliament’ which we are all very excited about – especially Gordon Brown. To be honest the difference between a Tory Government and a slightly less Tory Government doesn’t infuse me with too much excitement, though I am sure the days after a hung election will be quite good TV.

The boredom that this election can potentially saturate us with is furthered when we look over the fighting ground. This election will not be run on ideology or values (if those silly ideas exist within either party), instead this election will be run on numbers. How much the deficit can be cut by? How much spending can be dropped? And how much will taxes be raised? Not only is this rather dull unless you happen to be an economist or statistician, but its not exactly an exhilarating battleground. Both parties will promise deficit cuts, both will promise to drop spending and both will raise taxes. The exhilarating battlegrounds we have to look forward to is by how much they will do these things…again, not infused.

The idea that a discussion over the restoration of faith in politics may take place is almost enough to gain my interest, but that is quickly taken away when I realize we are debating expenses. I understand that it needs to be solved and yes it needs to be solved openly so we can ‘trust’ them again. Who ever heard of trusting politicians anyway! What I don’t understand is what is left to debate? Yes, Cameron will clean up politics, yes so will Brown, I am sure Clegg will soon…hell even BNP will…not much of a debate there.

When it comes down to it “It’s the economy stupid…” is very true in this election, sadly we are not going to see the Keynes vs Smith debate we might hope for. Instead, we have Brown vs Cameron…debating deficits...I can hardly wait!