Are the knives out for Cameron?

[joe-90]

According to some TV pundit they are. He should have walked all over Brown after 13 years in office, awful personal ratings, and a ruined economy. However, Cameron's ego forced Gordon Brown into a TV debate he didn't want - but Cameron wanted to kick his ass and humiliate him. Bad move as it let the erudite Clegg into the picture - and the rest is history. It was harder for Cameron not to win than to win so why did he throw it all away just for personal vanity.?

 

[skitzee2k]

According to some TV pundit they are. He should have walked all over Brown after 13 years in office, awful personal ratings, and a ruined economy. However, Cameron's ego forced Gordon Brown into a TV debate he didn't want - but Cameron wanted to kick his ass and humiliate him. Bad move as it let the erudite Clegg into the picture - and the rest is history. It was harder for Cameron not to win than to win so why did he throw it all away just for personal vanity.?

...the lib dems didn't get any more seats that usual so lets forget this 'clegg in the picture' thing.

The reason that it was harder than expected is because there are more dumb people in this country than expected.

2 wars, ****e economy, weak policies, broken country,......but "I vote labour, my dad voted labour..his dad voted labour.. i.e. idiots.

 

[joe-90]

He only did 3% better than Michael Howard. That's pretty weak in my opinion.

 

[skitzee2k]

He only did 3% better than Michael Howard. That's pretty weak in my opinion.

In which way did he only do 3% better than Howard?

 

[corgiman]

in 2005 howard gain an extra 33 seats

Cameron gained 97!! so thats an increas of 200%

where did you get you 3% from Joe??

 

[joe-90]

"In the May 2005 general election Michael Howard's party failed to unseat the Labour Government, although the Conservatives did gain 33 seats—five from the Liberal Democrats -- and Labour's majority shrank from 167 to 66. The Conservative share of the national vote increased by 0.6% from 2001 and 1.6% from 1997. The party ended with 34% and within 2% of Labour on 36%."

 

[skitzee2k]

"In the May 2005 general election Michael Howard's party failed to unseat the Labour Government, although the Conservatives did gain 33 seats—five from the Liberal Democrats -- and Labour's majority shrank from 167 to 66. The Conservative share of the national vote increased by 0.6% from 2001 and 1.6% from 1997. The party ended with 34% and within 2% of Labour on 36%."

All meaningless drivel Joe, what specifically did he only increase 3% of?

 

[joe-90]

The percentage of the vote.

 

[corgiman]

Sorry joe But i dont understand what you mean


ok here is some stats for you

2005 2010
Seats Won 198 305
Popular Vote 8,772,598 10,683,787

so there is no way to look at it other that the boy done extremely well and scored more Overall that 3% more than Howard.

 

[joe-90]

Percentage of the vote - not percentage of the seats.

 

[Lincsbodger]

According to some TV pundit they are. He should have walked all over Brown after 13 years in office, awful personal ratings, and a ruined economy. However, Cameron's ego forced Gordon Brown into a TV debate he didn't want - but Cameron wanted to kick his ass and humiliate him. Bad move as it let the erudite Clegg into the picture - and the rest is history. It was harder for Cameron not to win than to win so why did he throw it all away just for personal vanity.?

Sometimes i wonder in awe at the alternative universe you live in. The evnts you have a habit of posting about dont appear to have happened in this reality.

For a start, neither of the leaders could afford to be the one that didn't got to the debate. There wasnt an opt-out, it woudl have been political suicide.

I didnt spot any 'eruditness' in Clegg. he did ok in the first debate but then the knobs started to fall off a bit as he flipped and flopped and started to look like he didnt have a grasp on the sitution.

As for 'threw it all away', i dont think being 2 million votes and 97 seats up after amounted to that desription.

What was the election result in your reality ?

 

[corgiman]

The percentage of the vote.

well in a first past the post system the percentage of the vote doesnt mean much

Blair only achieved 3% more share of the vote that Howard In 2005 but was returned with a 66 seat majority

so it dont mean owt

 

[joe-90]

It means he only got 3% more than Howard.

 

[corgiman]

According to some TV pundit they are. He should have walked all over Brown after 13 years in office, awful personal ratings, and a ruined economy. However, Cameron's ego forced Gordon Brown into a TV debate he didn't want - but Cameron wanted to kick his ass and humiliate him. Bad move as it let the erudite Clegg into the picture - and the rest is history. It was harder for Cameron not to win than to win so why did he throw it all away just for personal vanity.?

Sometimes i wonder in awe at the alternative universe you live in. The evnts you have a habit of posting about dont appear to have happened in this reality.

For a start, neither of the leaders could afford to be the one that didn't got to the debate. There wasnt an opt-out, it woudl have been political suicide.

I didnt spot any 'eruditness' in Clegg. he did ok in the first debate but then the knobs started to fall off a bit as he flipped and flopped and started to look like he didnt have a grasp on the sitution.

As for 'threw it all away', i dont think being 23 million votes and 97 seats up after amounted to that desription.

What was the election result in your reality ?

best result for the tories since 1930's linc.

in some areas they achieved a collosal 13% swing against labour

unbelievable

 

[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).