Battle of the (lack of) political leadership - 1992 v 2013?

[applelover]

Having followed local elections last week it seems to me that each of the main three political parties have badly lost their way. I put this down to the lack of leadership in each party.

Cameron appeared to be Mr Smooth but clearly hasn't got the balls to make the big decisions; Clegg promised new politics but ended up being ... well Clegg unfortunately; and young master Miliband hasn't got the guts to say "yes I will borrow more".

I'm 33 and so the only time I can remember things being comparably bad was 1992. However after considering it I believe that this current mob are even worse.

- Major may have lacked Cameron's presentation but at least he won an election.
- Kinnock (whatever your views on his politics) lost an election that appeared to be in the bag, but his efforts to manage a Labour party's internal civil war need to be recognised.
- Ashdown laid the foundations for the rebirth of the liberal party.

Which lot would you rather have in government at the moment? Also can anyone put forward examples from the 50's, 60's and 70's which they believe were worse?

 

[applelover]

Mods - could this be moved to the politics forum? Sorry :)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Thatcher has to be the worst PM in my lifetime.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Thatcher has to be the worst PM in my lifetime.

Oh, here we go again! In YOUR opinion, in other people's opinion, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since sliced bread! Maggie is NOT the question here, it's about cross party leadership.

As it goes, for once, I agree with applelover. This lot are too afraid to upset people and stick to principles, they can't negotiate and they clearly can't legislate for change. At least back in '92, they weren't afraid to speak out!

 

[superblue24]

Thatcher has to be the worst PM in my lifetime.

If she was the worst PM of your lifetime, then why was she voted in three times?

 

[Jam_Man]

Thatcher had more balls than Milliband...

 

[WightShrimper]

Unfortunately, I don't feel as though we have three parties for this three to lead, they are all watered down versions of what they once were and all seem pretty interchangeable. We have lost a decent socialist Labour party and the Tories don't seem to be particularly right wing any longer. I hated Thatcher and all of what she stood for, but at least back then you could tell the parties apart.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

If she was the worst PM of your lifetime, then why was she voted in three times?

Heard about the Falklands? That was a game changer.

Wilson won four elections.Blair three.Does that make them better PM's?

 

[londonblue]

Oh, here we go again! In YOUR opinion, in other people's opinion, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since sliced bread! Maggie is NOT the question here, it's about cross party leadership.

As it goes, for once, I agree with applelover. This lot are too afraid to upset people and stick to principles, they can't negotiate and they clearly can't legislate for change. At least back in '92, they weren't afraid to speak out!

That's about all she was as good as. I hate sliced bread. I make my own.

Going back to the original point, I don't think Kinnock was the whole problem. The Labour party as it was then, was. Their views on unilateral disarmament being a case in point. There simply weren't enough people who believed in their policies.

I watched a very interesting documentary many many years ago where they took party leaders' speeches and played them to a group that had carefully been chosen to reflect the general public. Each was given a handset with 2 buttons on it. Every time a politician said something they agreed with they had to press one button, and every time the politician said something they disagreed with they had to press a different button.

They then showed them a speech by Thatcher. To start with all the Tories in the room agreed with every thing she said, and Labour supporters disagreed. By the end all the Tories still agreed, and some of the Labour supporters were agreeing with some of what she said.

Then they showed a speech by Kinnock. At the beginning the opposite was true: All the Tories disagreed with what he said, and Labour supporters agreed with him. The end was the interesting thing: all the Labour supporters agreed with him, but a large proportion of the Tories were also agreeing with him.

He may have been called the Welsh Windbag in the press, but the evidence actually showed that he was a far better public speaker than Thatcher. He was more able to persuade people over to his point of view than she was.

I'm not saying that makes him a better all-round leader, but it does dispell some of the things people believed to be the case.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That's about all she was as good as. I hate sliced bread. I make my own.

Going back to the original point, I don't think Kinnock was the whole problem. The Labour party as it was then, was. Their views on unilateral disarmament being a case in point. There simply weren't enough people who believed in their policies.

I watched a very interesting documentary many many years ago where they took party leaders' speeches and played them to a group that had carefully been chosen to reflect the general public. Each was given a handset with 2 buttons on it. Every time a politician said something they agreed with they had to press one button, and every time the politician said something they disagreed with they had to press a different button.

They then showed them a speech by Thatcher. To start with all the Tories in the room agreed with every thing she said, and Labour supporters disagreed. By the end all the Tories still agreed, and some of the Labour supporters were agreeing with some of what she said.

Then they showed a speech by Kinnock. At the beginning the opposite was true: All the Tories disagreed with what he said, and Labour supporters agreed with him. The end was the interesting thing: all the Labour supporters agreed with him, but a large proportion of the Tories were also agreeing with him.

He may have been called the Welsh Windbag in the press, but the evidence actually showed that he was a far better public speaker than Thatcher. He was more able to persuade people over to his point of view than she was.

I'm not saying that makes him a better all-round leader, but it does dispell some of the things people believed to be the case.

Having seen him speak at many Tribune rallies,I can confirm that Neil Kinnock was an excellent orator.His vilification in the right-wing press,is of course,the same tactic currently being displayed towards Ed Miliband.

 

[Neil_F]

Having seen him speak at many Tribune rallies,I can confirm that Neil Kinnock was an excellent orator.His vilification in the right-wing press,is of course,the same tactic currently being displayed towards Ed Miliband.

A member of the audience on Question Time said last night that people only wanted to leave the EU because of the right wing press.

Barna - why is it that much of left have so little faith in people? Do you really think that we are all so thick that we cannot form our own opinions?

 

[superblue24]

Heard about the Falklands? That was a game changer.

Wilson won four elections.Blair three.Does that make them better PM's?

Read your quote again, Barna.

Thatcher has to be the worst PM in my lifetime.

You either don't read things properly (which surely can't be true with all your outstanding qualifications), or you just choose to read things in a certain way to suit your argument.

I was responding to your (rather silly) sweeping statement that Thatcher was the worst leader in your lifetime and trying to reason with you by presenting the fact that she'd been voted into power three times which lends more credence to the contrary than your own (rather blinkered) assertions.

 

[superblue24]

Having seen him speak at many Tribune rallies,I can confirm that Neil Kinnock was an excellent orator.His vilification in the right-wing press,is of course,the same tactic currently being displayed towards Ed Miliband.

You go ahead and believe that. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Miliband being a wet lettuce, could it?

You're not fooling anyone, Barna. People will draw their own conclusions based on how a person comes across to them, not by how the press says that a person comes across.

 

[londonblue]

You go ahead and believe that. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Miliband being a wet lettuce, could it?

You're not fooling anyone, Barna. People will draw their own conclusions based on how a person comes across to them, not by how the press says that a person comes across.

You may or may not be right, and able to make up your own mind. But to believe that newspapers don't sway public opinion (one way or the other) is naiive. Remember the headline, "It's The Sun wot won it"?

 

[BrettieAngell]

Thatcher had more balls than Milliband...

and Cameron and Clegg.

 

[Neil_F]

You may or may not be right, and able to make up your own mind. But to believe that newspapers don't sway public opinion (one way or the other) is naiive. Remember the headline, "It's The Sun wot won it"?

Perhaps it would be worth considering the direction of the causality here. If you owned/edited a newspaper you would want to sell it and make a profit. Do you therefore take an editorial line of your own choosing in the hope that the paying public will convert to it or do you take an editorial line that will appeal to the largest audience in order to maximise sales?

Have you ever thought that The Sun take the line that they do because they can make a profit from readers of that persuasion?

Perhaps you may also want to reflect on The Sun's electoral "predictions" and you will find that the pick the party most likely to win. The same happened in 1992; the polls were turning against Labour and The Sun followed.

Newspaper circulation in 2013 is just below 8 million per day. That is less than 25% of the registered electorate. Newspapers reach fewer people than ever before and they chase readers for sales rather than influencing electoral outcomes.

Blaiming the media for political failings is no different from blaiming the referee for another poor performance and defeat.

 

[superblue24]

You may or may not be right, and able to make up your own mind. But to believe that newspapers don't sway public opinion (one way or the other) is naiive. Remember the headline, "It's The Sun wot won it"?

View attachment 2309

Sure, but there are as many Leftie papers as what there are Righties. My father-in-law buys The Mirror which I can barely read as the first 15 pages are taken up with continuous smear, slander and smokescreens regarding the current government.

As you say, they might "sway" the easily led or weak minded, but I'd expect the vast majority base their vote on the policies most applicable to them and/or the strength of the leader.

Say what you want about Cameron and his party, but he is a better leader than Miliband could ever hope to be.

 

[londonblue]

Perhaps it would be worth considering the direction of the causality here. If you owned/edited a newspaper you would want to sell it and make a profit. Do you therefore take an editorial line of your own choosing in the hope that the paying public will convert to it or do you take an editorial line that will appeal to the largest audience in order to maximise sales?

Have you ever thought that The Sun take the line that they do because they can make a profit from readers of that persuasion?

Of course there's an element of that. But to believe that some of the general population aren't swayed by the papers they read is simply naive.

Newspaper circulation in 2013 is just below 8 million per day. That is less than 25% of the registered electorate. Newspapers reach fewer people than ever before and they chase readers for sales rather than influencing electoral outcomes.

Maybe, but does that take into account the amount of people that read newspapers on line? I doubt it.

Blaiming the media for political failings is no different from blaiming the referee for another poor performance and defeat.

Who said I'm blaming the papers? I'm not. I'm just pointing out that papers sway public opinion. Yes, they also reflect public opinion, but (as I've said before) to say that no-one has their opinion swayed by newspapers is simply naive.

 

[londonblue]

Sure, but there are as many Leftie papers as what there are Righties. My father-in-law buys The Mirror which I can barely read as the first 15 pages are taken up with continuous smear, slander and smokescreens regarding the current government.

As you say, they might "sway" the easily led or weak minded, but I'd expect the vast majority base their vote on the policies most applicable to them and/or the strength of the leader.

But the point, for me, is that elections seem to be won and lost at the margins. As you say, there are a lot of people that will vote one way or the other because they have an affinity with that party. I doubt many of those types will be swayed by what they read. For example, I used to read The Times before it went behind a paywall, but I would never vote Tory. It's the small percentages in the middle that need to be persuade one way or the other, and I would imagine that since they're the type of person that does sway, they're the ones that are more likely to be persuaded by a newspaper.

I'm not trying to make a political point here. I'm just saying that I believe there are people that are swayed by newspapers, one way or the other.

Say what you want about Cameron and his party, but he is a better leader than Miliband could ever hope to be

In your opinion.

 

[Neil_F]

Of course there's an element of that. But to believe that some of the general population aren't swayed by the papers they read is simply naive.

I don't know of anybody claiming that newspapers do not influence the opinions of a single person.

My early point was in response to Barna saying that the general perception of Ed Miliband (as evidenced by his poll ratings) was entirely explained by the press he gets. It was not possible in Barna's mind for anyone to form an opinion of Mr Miliband beyond the prism of the "right wing press." Likewise the question time participant last night who considered the general mood of euroscepticism to be entirely prompted and orchestrated by the "right wing press".

People are obviously influenced by what they read. I would suggest that confirmation bias is common with any news story, but no doubt some people do change their vote based on newspaper reports. The notion that there is some kind of co-ordinated conspiracy to brain wash the thick masses (an argument implied frequently by the left) is plainly nonsense.

It is also worth considering how much of changing voter share is actually due to a failure to get out the vote. I wonder how many people actually change their vote from election to election as opposed to those who simply aren't motivated to vote for their preferred choice?