Sunday, July 22, 2007

What do the Tories base their predictions on?

The only newspaper I have read today is the Sunday Telegraph and they were happily sticking the boot in on Cameron. Not surprisingly they were talking of what they regarded as a need to emphasise more traditional Conservatives issues rather than the empty stunts and spin of Cameron, following their disaster in last week's by-elections.

The clear belief by the Conservatives that they could win in Ealing leaves me wondering what they base their predictions on. Is it definite evidence on the ground, such a canvassing and the level of engagement people are prepared to take up with the Conservatives? Or is it an assumption that stunts and publicity events generating a Tory feel good factor are sufficient. I suspect it is something of the latter.

I have come across this Tory feel good factor before. In the Leicester South by-election I was telling at a polling station with a Conservative MP. He was convinced the by-election was a 3 horse race with a strong likelihood that Labour would come third and the cOnservative first. He was also convinced that the Birmingham by-election held on the same day was a 2 horse race between Cons and Lab. We all know the reality was somewhat different. He had nothing to gain at this point by spreading disinformation. He simply genuinely believed what he was saying. I wonder whether the feel good factor for the Tories back then was based on the fact a bunch of Conservative MPs had travelled up to Leicester together on a coach, lubricated themselves with Pimms and went off to speak to a bunch of known Conservative supporters, thinking they were representative of the locals. And so I wonder what gave the Conservatives such a confident belief they could win Southall. I think it simply comes down to the fact that they thought all it takes to win is a high profile candidate who is not only media savvy, but happens to own the media as well!

It was interesting to read the confident remarks on Conservativehome and Iain Dale's blog before Thursday. But what was also interesting is the almost complete lack on mention on those sites of the Sedgefield campaign. Admittedly, I noticed one blog post from Iain Dale about Sedgefield, but it was more along the lines of "Sedgefield is some far away place about which the Conservatives don't give a toss but if anyone has a clue about what might be happening, please do tell." I haven't read his blog or Conservativehome since Wednesday, but from what I have heard, they aint exactly praising Cameron at the moment!

Sent via BlackBerry

1 comment:

George Dutton said...

You couldn`t have made this one up Jonathan.

Taken from the BlairWatch web site.

By Davide Simonetti

"Another House For Tony"

"And this time it's a palace! Apparently Blair wants to use the old residence of the British High Commissioner for Palestine as his base for his new role of Middle East envoy. Well, I suppose he has to stay somewhere and he can hardly be expected to rough it without essentials like a ballroom. And, of course, he'd want to be kept well clear of the Palestinians and as close as possible to his Israeli sponsors.
Actually, the location of this palace is ideal for Tony"

"The house, built of Jerusalem stone in 1931, was once the pride of British diplomacy and occupies a commanding position in West Jerusalem on the inauspiciously named Hill of Evil Counsel, where Judas is said to have negotiated his betrayal of Jesus. It has acres of lush gardens filled with delphiniums, roses and trees. After the British mandate ended in 1948, it was taken over by the United Nations."

"For someone who has dedicated the last ten years to betraying just
about everybody except the Americans and Israelis (not least the Palestinians) the location seems entirely appropriate. Presumably the reward for his new job will be substantially more than thirty pieces of silver."