Are the knives out for Cameron?

[joe-90]

"David Cameron was facing a growing backlash from his own MPs and party grandees today over the conduct of an election campaign that left him short of an overall majority and trying to make a deal with the Lib Dems. The Observer can reveal that Lord Ashcroft, who pumped £5m into marginal seats, is furious with the Tory leader for having agreed to take part in television debates that he believes undid much of his work for the party." - The Observer

 

[Lincsbodger]

In 2005, tories got 8.5 million votes. This time they got 10.5 million. ...that's like a 20% increase in votes. (most of the dumb TV Debate voters voted Libs I think, so in real terms THIS is what it should be measured by).

Measuring it like that is meaningless because the size of the total number of votes varies each time.

election 1 - i get 10 votes
election 2 - i get 12 votes

ie i get 2 more votes which is 20%

election 1 - i get 100 votes
election 2 - i get 102 votes

ie i get 2 more votes which is 2 percent

a meaningless measure.

 

[Thermo]

It means he only got 3% more than Howard.

the % of vote overall is meaningless. what they did was target seats they needed to get from labour. therefore its the change in voting in those areas not overall thats important. i think he has played it all pretty shrewdly so far.....time will tell though

 

[joe-90]

"In the words of one senior Tory backbencher to me yesterday, "Cameron has ****ed this election away." The Tory leader has spent more than four years "decontaminating the brand". Yet, against this backcloth of humiliation for Labour, he has ended up with less than a 3 per cent increase on the share of the vote achieved at the 2005 general election by Michael Howard, who pursued a "dog whistle" campaign highlighting, immigration, Europe and tax cuts." - Michael Brown in The Independent

 

[Lincsbodger]

It means he only got 3% more than Howard.

the % of vote overall is meaningless. what they did was target seats they needed to get from labour. therefore its the change in voting in those areas not overall thats important. i think he has played it all pretty shrewdly so far.....time will tell though

Thats right. The total number of votes woudl only be important if there wa sonly one election.

You may have noticed there wasnt one election, there was 650 simultaneous elections, only in those was the total number of votes important.

You get to rule if you win the majority of those elections, and thats the only measure that matters.

 

[joe-90]

Well tell that to his Tory mates.

 

[corgiman]

tell what to his tory mates

that several anti conversative papers are saying that some UNNAMED insiders are giving out about him

dont make me laugh thats about as mad as The Sun keeping calling Brown a squatter at number ten when they know 1 we needa Prime minister and untill deals are stuck and an executive has been sorted He Is the PM, 2, he is entitled to try adn make a deal with the libs if they fail to make one with the torys.

jaysus joe dont believe what you read in the papers

 

[joe-90]

Even with all the Tory press (nearly every paper) behind them he still couldn't get a win over the worst PM in recent history. Face it - the debates were a Tory disaster. People realised that there were more than 2 parties out there.

Cameron is mortally wounded. He's run off with his tail between his legs to try and salvage something from the charismatic Nick Clegg.

He's got Ashcroft's money against him now. He won't survive very long.

 

[joinerjohn]

"David Cameron was facing a growing backlash from his own MPs and party grandees today over the conduct of an election campaign that left him short of an overall majority and trying to make a deal with the Lib Dems. The Observer can reveal that Lord Ashcroft, who pumped £5m into marginal seats, is furious with the Tory leader for having agreed to take part in television debates that he believes undid much of his work for the party." - The Observer

If you think times are tough for David Cameron,,, What do you think it's like for Gordon Brown? If the knives are out for Cameron then they're firmly stuck in old one eye's back.

 

[corgiman]

i still cannot agree that a person who leads his party in to an election and gains 97 seats is a failure.

also the torys have been without power for so long they will take their medicine like good children and hopefully get into bed with the libs

they would rub along for a while and Cameron will then call another General Election in the autumn and get his majority (albeit a small one)

and the libs would have proved they can be trusted in government and beat labour into third place and take their rightful place as the opposition.

and those flip flopping, money worshipping, deceitful labourites can eff off intot he wilderness untill they find their principles AGAIN

 

[Thermo]

Even with all the Tory press (nearly every paper) behind them he still couldn't get a win over the worst PM in recent history. Face it - the debates were a Tory disaster. People realised that there were more than 2 parties out there.

Cameron is mortally wounded. He's run off with his tail between his legs to try and salvage something from the charismatic Nick Clegg.

He's got Ashcroft's money against him now. He won't survive very long.

he got the largest swing for over 80 years and got a government out that were in a strong position. Tactically it was unlikely that they were going to get an outright majority and they knew it. Why do you think the tories were conspicous by there absence on friday till he made his speech? They knew before the election where they would end up and they have been planning for that.

 

[Lincsbodger]

Even with all the Tory press (nearly every paper) behind them he still couldn't get a win over the worst PM in recent history. Face it - the debates were a Tory disaster. People realised that there were more than 2 parties out there.

Cameron is mortally wounded. He's run off with his tail between his legs to try and salvage something from the charismatic Nick Clegg.

He's got Ashcroft's money against him now. He won't survive very long.

utter codswallop. After 14 years the tories are within a gnats whisker of forming the next government, you thinkt here going to blow it all by having a civil war ? Utter crap, joe............

 

[skitzee2k]

In 2005, tories got 8.5 million votes. This time they got 10.5 million. ...that's like a 20% increase in votes. (most of the dumb TV Debate voters voted Libs I think, so in real terms THIS is what it should be measured by).

Measuring it like that is meaningless because the size of the total number of votes varies each time.

election 1 - i get 10 votes
election 2 - i get 12 votes

ie i get 2 more votes which is 20%

election 1 - i get 100 votes
election 2 - i get 102 votes

ie i get 2 more votes which is 2 percent

a meaningless measure.

It isn't when talking about share of vote.

 

[joe-90]

If Cameron only increased his voting percentage by 3% - that's a disaster. Ashcrofts money and all the Tory press and the hugely unpopular Brown - he should have done what New Lab did in 97 and romp home. He's a failure - ask the Tory Party.

 

[skitzee2k]

If Cameron only increased his voting percentage by 3% - that's a disaster. Ashcrofts money and all the Tory press and the hugely unpopular Brown - he should have done what New Lab did in 97 and romp home. He's a failure - ask the Tory Party.

...as I have said, vote share is nothing. It is not what defines power or seats.

I could train 100 people to know everything about a subject before a vote but if 200 uneducated prats come in on the vote, the number of people that voted for either does not show it is the best option. We are just lucky that the educated to dumb ratio wasn't as bad as my example.