h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Which thread is this again?

It's that one, over there.

"No FB, I think you bring your own knowledge and interest to the subject and it skews your viewpoint."

So having studied the topic academically and read what the leading political Scientists have had to say on the topic makes my viepoint skewed? .....

Yes - because you have an intimate working knowledge, through study & practice, of the workings of politics. You understand the language, mechanics, dynamics, philosophies and ideologies.

Joe Bloggs votes Labour because his dad did.

No, I odnt know if you noticed this SWL, but elections don't always have the same resul;t, or the same issues.

There are reasons why people change their votes, or withold votes to their "usual" parties. This gives us different elections, parties and results.

A *big* reason why Labour have recently been successful is that they have changed the basuis of their appeal and public policy agenda.

Just becuase this seems to have escaped you doesn't m,ean it escaped the voting polulation. Hence why Labour won in 97 but not in 92.

I'm not going to go looking for the figures, I'm sure you won't argue with them anyway. The last election saw a gap of less than a million votes between Tory & Labour. The core vote usually remains fairly static. It is the 1 - 3 million "swing" voters who both parties address. Swing voters tend to be undecided precisely because they *do* listen to the arguments put forward by both parties. But they are not representative of the majority.

Exactly what would you attribute Kinnock's surprising defeat, flying in the face of every opinion poll going? Did the voters carefully analyse the manifestoes or were they swayed by the pompous pre-election victory party?

I think you will find that the *really* significant thing in 92 was Saatchi and Saatchis inspired "Labours Tax Bombshell" campaign.

Labour won in 97, 91 and 05 because they proposed an agenda different from in the 90s. Specifically having abandonded socialist policies people started trusintg them again to run the economy.

And there was me thinking it was 'The Sun wot one it'!

The "Labour's Tax Bombshell" campaign was launched on the 6th January 1992.

Yet despite this, on the day of the victory rally, 1st April, polls showed Labour with up to a 7% lead. The day after the rally, the polls showed the lead cut to 0.5%. 8 days later they were beaten.

The newspapers, particularly the Sun as Fanny pointed out, portrayed the rally as "Nuremburg-like". On the day of the election, the Sun ran the headline "If Kinnock Wins Today Will The Last Person in Britain Please Turn Out The Lights".

Policies don't win elections. Headlines do.

I forgot Randall Iron Law of Politics.

"If SWL posts any old biased bull excrement that is just his opinion it must be true".

Why of why did they not teach me that at uni, it would have saved all that effort learning about what actually qualified poplitical scientists thouight....

Christ....

Was it "qualified poplitical scientists" who said "the *really* significant thing in 92 was Saatchi and Saatchis inspired "Labours Tax Bombshell" campaign".

Yes, lots of political scientists explained that that ad campaign was hugely siognificant in changing peoples voting intentions. Elections are always complicated and there are many causes.

But as I understand it lots of research was carried out as to asking people who changed their voting intentions as to why they did, most people who had previous said "labour" but ended up voting Tory in 92 did so over taxation.

SWL I know this is a radical sugesstion for you, but just because you think something is true it doesn't make it so.

Excuse me. Is this the right room for an arguement?

PP

Well I've told you once.

RF

No you didn't!

PP

Pedantically speaking, that should have been 'no, you haven't'.

az

Ah, but then you can't go off on the whole Monty Python sketch...

"Yes I did!"
"No you didn't!"
"I did"
"You didn't"
"I'm telling you, I did"
"Oh no you didn't"
"I'm sorry, is this the 5-minute argument, or the full half-hour?"

etc.

RF

FB, come on. You can do better than that.

I've posted facts and figures, you've posted opinion and yet you assert that my opinions are wrong

Your fabulous ad campaign ran for four months, yet Labour still had a 7% lead. Do you seriously expect me to believe that a months old, failed campaign suddenly turned into a winner a week before the election?

Did a 7% lead drop to 0.5% because everybody just noticed the ad campaign?

Well, that was *your* fault, RF, for not posting 'I told you once'. You said 'I've told you once' so the correct reply would be to use the auxiliary verb 'have' in the short reply...

az

Excuse me. Is this the right room for an arguement?

PP