While your article does provide a good insight into the way the campaigns are developing, I think you need to devote some time to the ideas that sit in the background.
Only a tiny minority is interested in the full details of manifestos. They do serve a purpose for the civil service and the House of Lords, but are otherwise rather redundant. All the time, in the background, as well as momentum there is the general feel amongst voters of the direction of potential government for each party and their ability to get there.
The Conservatives are failing on both points. Experience of the past fourteen years and infighting within the party destroys their old reputation for competence. Their fixation with reducing taxes suggest a direction for all other aspects of government that just doesn't appeal.
A combination of memories of Blair's government (if not Brown's) means that a lot of voters see Labour as competent at day-to-day government. Starmer's rigid control of the party reinforces this. And while without eye-catching policies their modest proposals on policies suggest a direction more in keeping with the mood of the country.
It's these twin strands, direction and ability to execute that are driving electors.
Freddie, this is well crafted. I think you have captured both the information and the mood music. Loved the image of the guy standing in the sea. You missed a Mel Stride joke there!
As an Irish man who arrived in the UK in 1958 I am amazed at the ferocity with which some of my English acquaintances view the idea of Scottish independence. Many of them think it is treasonous to even think of a future where the Kingdom is divided. I mention the right of all people to rule themselves and I am then included with the treasonous. Where do people get these ideas that a fictitious entity ( the UK) has a meaning other than convenience? Alfred the Great needed a single country as the only means of defeating the Vikings. Edward I needed to conquer Scotland solely as an example that he could rule France. Such ideas proved costly in lives and treasure but it is only by their consent that any people should be governed.
Freddie,
While your article does provide a good insight into the way the campaigns are developing, I think you need to devote some time to the ideas that sit in the background.
Only a tiny minority is interested in the full details of manifestos. They do serve a purpose for the civil service and the House of Lords, but are otherwise rather redundant. All the time, in the background, as well as momentum there is the general feel amongst voters of the direction of potential government for each party and their ability to get there.
The Conservatives are failing on both points. Experience of the past fourteen years and infighting within the party destroys their old reputation for competence. Their fixation with reducing taxes suggest a direction for all other aspects of government that just doesn't appeal.
A combination of memories of Blair's government (if not Brown's) means that a lot of voters see Labour as competent at day-to-day government. Starmer's rigid control of the party reinforces this. And while without eye-catching policies their modest proposals on policies suggest a direction more in keeping with the mood of the country.
It's these twin strands, direction and ability to execute that are driving electors.
Freddie, this is well crafted. I think you have captured both the information and the mood music. Loved the image of the guy standing in the sea. You missed a Mel Stride joke there!
This Morning Call is going great guns. 👏
Thanks a lot!
As an Irish man who arrived in the UK in 1958 I am amazed at the ferocity with which some of my English acquaintances view the idea of Scottish independence. Many of them think it is treasonous to even think of a future where the Kingdom is divided. I mention the right of all people to rule themselves and I am then included with the treasonous. Where do people get these ideas that a fictitious entity ( the UK) has a meaning other than convenience? Alfred the Great needed a single country as the only means of defeating the Vikings. Edward I needed to conquer Scotland solely as an example that he could rule France. Such ideas proved costly in lives and treasure but it is only by their consent that any people should be governed.