Channel 4 News has commissioned a poll from YouGov in the 60 marginal constituencies David Cameron needs to win to form a Government. LDV doesn’t dwell on individual poll results – the only sensible way to use polls is to look at trends – but it’s worth highlighting one finding which is unlikely to get much publicity.
YouGov asked the question: “If you were to put political party preferences to one side who would be the best Chancellor for Britain right now?”
And here’s what the public said:
Alistair Darling – 15%
George Osborne – 12%
Vince Cable -19%
Don’t know – 54%
A high proportion of Don’t Knows, it’s true – but can you recall the last occasion when a Lib Dem shadow chancellor would have been rated by the public as the best person to do the job for real?
Interestingly, Vince gets his most favourable ratings among the following groups:
Men (27%)
Over 55s (27%)
ABC1s (23%)
London and Scotland (both 22%)
Time for Lib Dems to start putting that EARS and Mosaic data to good use in some direct mail…
PS: You can download the full results here.
Share:
55 Comments
It’s good to see what a big effect this is having on the LD vote share:))))))))
As I thought – “Lib Dem Voice doesn’t do polls” goes right out of the window when one like this comes along!
I’m not sure how often I have to repeat this but let’s try once again for the benefit of CCF…
Lib Dem Voice doesn’t obsess about each and every poll and the headline voting intentions: never has, never will.
We have, though, quite regularly looked at individual questions within polls where they seem of interest, as well as analysing the polls for trends.
“Lib Dem Voice doesn’t obsess about each and every poll …”
Just the good ones!
54% don’t even have a view.
It’s tragic really!
Was this opinion research conducted before or after Osborne hoisted the Jolly Roger?
So, just to confirm, have we all now agreed that Clegg’s Candid Friend is a Tory troll?
Andrew
[Sigh!]
In fact the siteowners went to the trouble of confirming that I wasn’t, when somebody started following me round previously spouting this rubbish – or the last time but three that happened …
Clearly I’m not fan of Nick Clegg, but seriously I wonder about the basic comprehension skills of anyone who could think I was a Tory. Anything but!
I don’t read every thread, so forgive me if this has been discussed previously and at length. I could accept you’re not a Tory, but I’m still concerned, if you’re a member, with your constant and unrelenting negativity! If not a tool of another party then surely a weapon of attempted mass demoralisation?
“If not a tool of another party then surely a weapon of attempted mass demoralisation?”
Surely you don’t really believe anyone could be so naive as to think they could accomplish “mass demoralisation” by posting comments on a website?
If so, you must think morale within the party is in an unbelievably fragile state.
Most Tories actually.
‘Attempted’ is the key word in my sentence.
The result is interesting, and even more so when you consider that these were people in Tory/Labour marginals – maybe some were three way marginals, but perhaps not many.
AND, of 25 questions, only two mentioned our party, and only this one mentioned a Liberal Democrat by name. The other 22 questions were as if we didn’t exist.
The sample only included 12% Lib-Dem voters, so Vince getting 19% approval is pretty good really.
I’m confident we’ve acquired votes from both Labour and the Tories here; Brown is still in post mostly because there’s a lack of a credible alternative candidate; while almost every Tory I talk to, even before recent allegations, has no faith in George Osborne.
CCF = Clandestine Conservative Future? Or some other word beginning with “C”?
Tiger Tiger
You’re on the wrong thread. Basic literacy problems are being discussed elsewhere.
It’s a great shame that Vince Cable is in a party that will ensure that he never has the opportunty to use his talents in government.
I’m a You Gov person – almost reached my first £50! Anyhow, I’d be one of the Vince Cable supporters on this one. I also thought he’d be the best party leader – pity he ruled himself out. Hey ho!
Oh come now, CCF. You can hardly be surprised if people keep thinking you’re a troll. If it quacks like a duck, etc. Mark can’t always be around to bail you out by providing confirmation of your membership, so why not try commenting in a less relentlessly destructive manner from time to time? At the moment I’m afraid people are just drawing the logical inference.
Or – here’s a thought – why not state three reasons why you enjoy being a member? That ought to do it.
I hear some Japanese robo-geek has developed an automated duck which quacks and waddles and swims… just like a duck. So that phrase should by now be as dead as a… Conservative economic spokesman?
I quite like CCF’s hyper-critical attitude actually (contrasting as it does with my hyper-enthusiasm), it keeps us on our toes and saves us from any group-think. It’s a shame that he/she can’t be a bit more judicious about balancing it out as such an attitude does come across as immoderate.
As for this survey I thought it was a bit biased against us by not including Clegg/Cable as an option on the leadership question.
Vince Cable’s success as Shadow Chancellor, and Ming Campbell’s success as a foreign affairs spokesman, is based on the ability of both men when occupying their specialist territory to sound like an economist (Vince) and a lawyer (Ming) rather than a politician.
Mr Clegg, by contrast, comes across as a vaguely appealling guy in a clone suit who mouths platitudes and generalities that everyone fogets by the time they get to the taxi-rank.
Alix
You think I sound like a Tory? Frankly, sometimes I wonder whether the new generation of award-winning bright young things in this party is all it’s cracked up to be.
And this isn’t the first time you have suggested I should “prove” my loyalty to/enthusisam for the party. How very 1930s totalitarian of you. But actually, I think I’m showing a damn sight more fidelity to the fundamental principles of the party than the looney libertarians who are doing their utmost to subvert those principles.
As for the latest little spat, I don’t really blame Stephen for accentuating the positive – he’s just doing his job. But in the last month each of the three particularly favourable polls has had its own article here. So it’s a bit ridiculous for him to claim “I have always argued that obsessing about any one voting intention poll is a mug’s game – but also argue that we should be alert to polling trends”.
Clegg’s Candid Friend referred to “looney libertarians”
These include “libertarians” who are in favour of forcing people to breathe tobacco smoke. One of these even goes as far as to say that I should not cross the street to protect myself from tobacco smoke to avoid offending the tobacco abuser! Ho, ho! Very “libertarian”!
No wonder we are losing so much support.
Next election campaign has to be a joint Clegg-Cable ticket definitely. Can see it working well.
Vince Cable deserves to be on top, especially after his brave decision to face down libertarians in the party and support the nationalisation of Northern Rock.
However most people glaze over when politicians talk about economics, and the 54% don’t know is disappointing but not surprising.
“You think I sound like a Tory?”
No, I don’t think you sound like a Tory. I think you sound like a troll. That’s a different thing – a troll doesn’t need to have a particular affiliation.
Trolling per se, for the benefit of anyone who has enough of a life off the internet not to know, is just a constant inclination to negativity and destructiveness, with the particular aim of wasting others’ energy and time and detract from whatever serious discussion might be going on (often by provoking them with rudeness, as on this thread).
I do think you have your moments, mind. Yesterday on the libertarian thread I thought that, apart from the low patch when you decided to have a pointlessly ageist sneer at Charlotte, you talked a lot of (critical) sense. But moments of criticism need to be balanced by moments of constructiveness if you want to be taken seriously. If you can’t ever be constructive, or positive, or resist hurling ad hominems at anyone who dares to question you, then you do fit the definition of a troll. No need for Toryism to come into it.
CCF, I would draw a distinction between obsessing on one poll and having a discussion about it.
I think Stephen can validly claim not to be obsessing and yet see value in writing a Lib Dem Voice article.
Alix
I think sooner or later you’ll have to accept that people are going to post what they want to here, not what you would like them to. I don’t think your continual lectures about what people should be saying (and thinking?) are very liberal at all.
Just an aside about ageism. I suppose you’re referring to my remark about the arrogance of 20-something Internet Rightists (which, remember, I posted in response to Charlotte Gore’s endearing comment that “This is not a politics club for your personal amusement”).
Now you can call that ageism if you like, but I don’t think it’s any accident that so many of the people advocating these naive, simplistic policies are very young. I remember I was pretty naive and simplistic myself when I was 20. In a sense it’s natural to think you have all the answers at that age. Inevitably, if you survive another ten or twenty years, you find out that you don’t.
Anyhow, I find the accusation of ad hominem insults an odd one coming from you. What’s that in your post about “for the benefit of anyone who has enough of a life off the internet not to know”?
“Why not try commenting in a less relentlessly destructive manner from time to time?”
Look, the party I have worked for for 27 years has just decided to tear up its core principles and try to rebrand itself a la Tony Blair, only a lot further to the right. This is proving to be “relentlessly destructive” of our morale on the ground and of our standing in the community. There is a time for analysis and quiet reflection, and that time is not now!
I realise that the things which I, CCF and several others say are hurtful, because they prick away at people’s consciences, and get under their skin. However, I’m not going to pipe down because the politburo would like me to. On the contrary, I will take all these squeals of annoyance as a sign that we are beginning to make some headway!
“What’s that in your post about “for the benefit of anyone who has enough of a life off the internet not to know”?”
Well, it was a compliment to anyone who doesn’t know what a troll is. Because anyone who doesn’t know probably has a proper life off the internet. Unlike me, because I do know, being the implication. This is called “self-deprecation”.
And as to liberalism, you’re allowed to say what you like, and I’m allowed to say I think you’re a troll and explain why. That’s the deal.
@David,
I have had civil and constructive conversations with you, and I’ve seen you have them with others. I can’t say that about CCF.
Alix,
Yes, you do seem to be quicker with the abuse when it’s CCF than when it’s me. I don’t really know why, perhaps it’s because i use my real name? Anyway, I won’t let it bother me!
David Allen wrote:
“Yes, you do seem to be quicker with the abuse when it’s CCF than when it’s me.”
She’s also quite snitty to me when I have the temerity to uphold the right of innocent people to go about their lawful business without being forced to breathe tobacco smoke. But she isn’t a tenth as rude as the unlovely Councillor Papworth (a “libertarian”, apparently), who would do well if he put a fraction of the energy he devotes to promoting tobacco abuse into tackling the state of Penge Town Centre.
By and large, Alix is reaosnably cuddly.
“And as to liberalism, you’re allowed to say what you like, and I’m allowed to say I think you’re a troll and explain why.”
I’m sorry, I did misconstrue the “life off the internet” comment.
But as to the “troll” business. If I were going round posting provocative comments just to stir up arguments, yes, that would make me a troll.
I know there are people like that on the Internet, but I’m not one of them. What I’m doing is expressing my unhappiness at the current state of the party. I think after 20 years as a member I have at least the right to do that, without being called a c*** and other names.
I think a good shout can sometimes clear the air and dissipate the bitterness which can fester, but it also requires that we all kiss and make up afterwards.
In order to do so we need to get to the bottom of our differences of opinion to understand why we disagree on those points. Many times it is a difference of opinion, sometimes it is a misconstrued phrase and occasionally it resides in mistaken facts.
I’m opinionated and I’m open to disagreement, but I’m definite than this is only acceptable if we are clear-headed in our reasons.
I don’t accept that the party is moving away from our fundamentals, but I can fully understand from many of our past experiences that we couold be justified in being paranoid about this threat and the threat to our electoral chances.
I am constantly amazed at the pressures that many people accept and deal with as they rise up through the party ranks because I see that this takes a heavy toll wherever anyone takes on responsibility without sufficient preparation or support, but in our anxiety to do what’s best we can sometimes lose sight of our humour and our humanity.
And this is most obviously true when participating in these discussions here.
So I hope I haven’t offended anyone outright even when I’ve been a bit overzealous or cheeky.
All the same I think it is important to keep a sense of proportion about the content of our conversations – this poll chatter isn’t the important stuff so we really need to make sure we don’t obsess over it even if some of us secretly do – being judgemental is ungenerous and can be disheartening.
Onto the subject of the leadership…
It is important to realise that we have plumped for a person who is here for the long-haul (because it will be a long haul, good politics always is), so it is entirely unrealistic to expect somebody who is incapable of growing into the role to fill it for us.
Having followed Clegg for a while now it is clear that he does have potential to do well for us, so it is our job to ensure he fulfills his potential.
Clegg will challenge us and we will have our disagreements with him, but just as among ourselves this shows we have a healthy relationship with our leader, and just as with all relationships the foundations are based on good communication between all sides.
If anyone has any specific complaints then you ought to be forthright in presenting them so that they can be addressed in a practical way.
We aren’t limited by an editorial word count here so we don’t need to talk in abstract generalisations in the way that prominent journalists do.
So I’ll start off.
I don’t think Clegg always nails his point. He can equivocate and leave unfinished sentences. Such a performance can raise some doubts about his intentions and I would mark him down on this, but this is something which is learnt.
But I do think he has showed his liberal mettle and his strategic nous on several occasions, none more so than the way he put the coalition question to bed – which proved he is a far more capable leader and far more in tune with the membership than either Paddy or Ming were.
The leader of the third party is always a high-wire act which requires an acute sense of balance, so we need to give him as much constructive support as possible, just as Vince and our MPs are doing.
Whatever the polls may say right at this moment I am still convinced we will grow the number of our seats in parliament at the next election even if it is only by a half a dozen. So now is not the time to allow disillusion or frustration to set in.
Bah, grr, all right, then. *sulks* *shakes hands*. And I hadn’t noticed the c*** comment, which was rather unpleasant.
On Clegg, I agree on the not nailing his point. That’s exactly it. In fact that was why I didn’t originally vote for him. The shame of it is that in general he has got a lot better at that over the past ten months. It only seems to be over the financial crisis period that he hasn’t been hitting home as consistently. When I heard him on the World at 1 the other day, he sounded pretty much how he did last December. Clearly it’s a lot to demand of someone that they be unfuzzy, word-perfect and to the point 24/7, but then that’s his job.
To be fair his main plus point, for me, has been the direction he has set on tax, on liberalism-as-buzzword and on Europe (I still think we’ll end up being right about that referendum), and I can see that if you don’t like that, you won’t like much. Things I suspect we universally like include the way he has repeatedly pushed the government all year on fuel poverty, house repossessions and other matters considered too mundane to form the centre of a Cameron setpiece. But whether people really notice that is another matter.
One external perception point though. When people want to bash us these days, it’s interesting that they just abuse Clegg rather than saying he shouldn’t be leader. No-one talks about the Lib Dem leadership any more. It’s just gone off the radar for everyone apart from the occasionally-very-bored Coffee House Blog.
Trying to be constructive – and the main problem for me with Clegg is the policy direction on tax, and public services in general – I think surely the problem with screwing things up in interviews could be solved by more practice (preferably practice in the privacy of Cowley Street or wherever) and better briefing. At least I hope he is learning things like the price of a loaf of bread, in order to avoid a repetition of the £30-a-week pension debacle.
Regarding the leadership not being an issue, I think everyone – whatever their view of Clegg – accepts that the party can’t change its leader a third time in one Parliament, so it’s effectively off the agenda before the next general election.
Oh, and drop this silly idea of directing resources to 50 Labour-held seats. (I note that Mark Littlewood thinks it was never anything more than a stunt.)
Yes, the urge to seek headlines can be a bad thing, but then so too can be never making them (although I don’t think George Osborne would mind that just now).
Reading Danny Alexander’s article is a case in point. It would be easy to criticise for using language designed to communicate to non-experts, just as it would be for being an incomplete solution to the problems in the economy, but in what it does it is actually quite gently reassuring and skillful in the way it does it.
There is a time for this just as there is for stunts, so if we can get our timing right then we will hit the punchline on the nose.
CCF
“the main problem for me with Clegg is the policy direction on tax, and public services in general” – specifically what?
“specifically what?”
Don’t get me started. But I would say – and David Allen’s posts above have reassured me that it’s not just me – that a lot of newer members, say those who have become involved in the last 5 years or so, simply don’t appreciate the degree to which Clegg’s commitment to focus all our attention on cutting taxes is anathema to many members of longer standing.
And that goes even more strongly for those of us who joined the party when Thatcher was in power. For decades the party fought to defend public services against cuts, and particularly against this lazy proposition that “there’s so much waste, it must be easy to cut X% without harming services” – which is never, of course, accompanied by any details of how exactly the money is to be saved.
To many of us, the policies the leadership is now putting forward are almost indistinguishable from those we fought against when the Conservatives were in power. So it’s not just a “difference of emphasis”, and it would be a mistake to think that everyone will just carry on working for the party out of loyalty, when many disagree so strongly with the direction in which it is being led.
CCF,
“don’t get me started”
this is exactly what I want to do. I want to hear your specific criticism to shoot them down, or, if they stand up, to push for a response.
And if we don’t know because you won’t say, then we can ignore you as a rumour-monger and muckspreader.
Oranjepan,
I’m sure CCF will indignantly retort that he has provided you with ample specific criticism, so why aren’t you now giving him specific responses?
To be fair, your comments are quite similar to the ones I heard recently from some of my local colleagues – though they are a fair-minded bunch, and they don’t go spraying around silly insults like “rumour-monger”.
They said things like “Surely it isn’t really as bad as you’re saying David? Surely Clegg is just pushing this tax-neutral Green Tax Switch policy we heard earlier? Surely he is not really proposing a two-tier NHS? Surely he would make up the shortfall with a wealth tax or something?”
And then I just explained what the facts are, and the room went a bit quiet.
OK David, I’m listening, go on and tell us what ‘the facts’ are.
I doubt CCF will be indignant in the way you describe because this is a dialogue which has been ongoing for sometime now. Though I’m glad you’re now joining in.
I’m just so confused and need to be put right, obviously, perhaps you’ll oblige…
Oranjepan, when I have a couple of hours free to cut-and-repaste some of my posts over the last few months, plus Paul Holmes’s piece here before Conference, plus James Graham’s despairing accounts of the ever-changing narrative offered to the Press before conference, etcetera, I can spoon-feed you some facts. In the meantime, you could look for yourself.
Oranjepan
In a nutshell, it’s the fact that cutting taxes is now the party’s top priority – above social justice and above environmental action.
That’s what I disagree with.
David,
then you’ll also free me from doing the same.
It is interesting that you raise JG’s ‘ever-changing narrative’ as a criticism of our proposals, as this would seem to me to be a criticism of our communication strategy rather than what the proposals involve.
I agree that LG’s criticism is valid, as this would seem to explaim why we are having this conversation.
However, if you could briefly outline what you don’t like then we can get down to business.
oops, I wonder if you’re in agreement with CCF, David?
CCF,
I question the factuality of your statement.
I would say that the tax switch idea is about conjoining action on issues with the reasons for collecting revenue.
By ring-fencing certain spending allocations we can be both more effective and more efficient.
I think the radical idea is to question the very basis for deciding our priorities – is any one area more important than any other?
Oranjepan
“I question the factuality of your statement.”
As I said, we’ve been through this many times before.
Quite clearly Clegg is pushing tax cuts as his number one priority, and the defeat of the amendment at conference made it explicit that they were a higher priority than social justice and environmental action.
If people want to argue in favour of that policy, fair enough. But it’s really not tenable to deny that it is the policy.
CCF,
Not at all.
I thought the vote at conference was about decoupling the idea of tax rises as the only means of advancing our priorities of social justice and environmental protection.
Clearly there are more ways of addressing a problem than by throwing money at it, and I think we are completely sensible to be more circumspect about spending in a time of recession.
Our priorities haven’t changed one bit, we have only adjusted our emphasis in the way we propose addressing them.
It really depends on the type of tax cuts we propose and how we balance that out with out proposed legislative programme.
Oranjepan
“Our priorities haven’t changed one bit …”
Sorry, but some opinions are just too silly to argue with.
Oranjepan says “Our priorities haven’t changed one bit, we have only adjusted our emphasis in the way we propose addressing them.”
Yes CCF, this has me falling about laughing, too. If we are to make any progress, we will have to apply some sort of advanced semiotic deconstruction technique to this unique linguistic style.
Oranjepan can, when he wants to, be a model of limpid clarity. And then he intersperses crazy paragraphs like the one I have quoted. The only reasonable conclusion then must be – That is when he is deliberately trying to muddy the waters.
Now, that is not necessarily an ignoble aim. There can be times when it is appropriate.
Oranjepan, I think, would like us all to be one big happy family. He would like us all to forget about policy disagreements, and go out and run a united campaign.
Now, you and I might find some problems there. You and I might quail at the idea of canvassing the local ex-council estate, with Lembit’s latest on page 3 of the Focus, and a demand to cut taxes and services on page 1. However, let’s be fair to Oranjepan. I’m sure he would counsel us to be more circumspect. And, perhaps he would have a point.
You see, others do seem to be acting that way, and, perhaps they are getting somewhere. Danny Alexander didn’t actually say “revenue neutral” in the piece he wrote, but as Alix commented, it might reasonably have been interpreted that way. Jo Swinson said much the same last night on Question Time.
Are all these reasonable people gradually talking our party back towards some kind of sense, I wonder? Or are they just trivial minions, who are soon going to get slapped down by the Leader?
My vote is for consensus and against arbitrary rule by the Leader. And if Oranjepan’s convoluted sentences help us towards reaching that consensus, I shall swallow my pedantic objections to his phraseology!
David,
that sounds pretty much like as close to a compliment as I’m likely to get from you! If the worst I can do is to be incapable of touch-typing a word-perfect speech at your behest, then I’ll survive ok thank you very much!
I’m quite sympathetic to your concerns and I hear your scepticism, but I don’t hear any constructive addition.
Please tell me, how do you think it is possible to balance the opposing demands of revenue and spending whilst we have an ever-more intrusive state and an ever-more unaffordable economy? As I see it the two are very obviously connected.
I don’t think we win by being devious on the doorstep and only presenting half of our policy ideas, I think we are actually more successful by being more honest and drawing the connection.
As it happens I’ve been challenged on a number of occasions by current and former opposition voters about the subject of services and without fail the people I’ve spoken to in both richer and poorer areas are all very receptive to the idea that there are essential services accessible to all and luxury services designed for special interest groups, so it’s advisable to have a few local examples to hand to show them where real wastage exists. I’ve also got into discussions where I’ve been prepared to be convinced over the grounds of definition for particular examples and then changed my mind before going on to make representations to our local council on their behalf.
I’m not personally particularly worried whether we are all saying that our tax plans are to be ‘revenue-neutral’ or not as I think in the current circumstances there isn’t so much room to manoeuver one way or the other – the important thing is to show we are more competent and more trust-worthy of handling the public kitty than either Labour or Conservatives and that we have a clear foundation for making changes as we go forward (ie the tax switch).
Ultimately it is a question of judgement about wher ethe greatest risk resides – where do you think this is?
“… the important thing is to show we are more competent and more trust-worthy of handling the public kitty than either Labour or Conservatives …”
I think that is a very dangerous direction to go in, particularly as an argument that policy disagreements don’t matter.
Party divisions are based on policy differences, not competence or trustworthiness. Obviously we want to be as competent as we can, and obviously we aren’t about to sing the praises of our opponents, but fundamentally we have to be sensible and acknowledge that there are competent and trustworthy people in all parties (well, nearly all).
This is why I’m sceptical about tax cuts being funded by “efficiency savings”. Any government would give its right arm for efficiency savings on this scale. The question is whether Lib Dems could achieve them where others have failed.
CCF,
The Govt already requires savings of the order of £20bn each and every year under the Gershon plan.
On economic policy differentiation presents its’ own dangers in the current circumstances because nobody really knows where this financial crisis is heading, so a sense of confidence and decisiveness fostered by cross-party consensus is more important than any particular policy – look at how Cameron has been slated for ‘talking the economy down’ by breaking with agreements to offer bi-partisan support.
Within this showing competence and trustworthiness is the most positive strategy (this is why questions of bad judgement hit particularly George Osborne hard) and can only be built by being as open as possible extolling the virtues of good practice and being first to warn about the risks involved in any particular course of action (George Osborne appears not to be aware of risks in volved in particular courses of action and is actively willing to subvert good practice even after recieving warnings).
In this Nick, Vince, Chris and team are doing a better job than any of the other parties and although the polls may not be swinging in our favour yet the volatility indicates that the public mind is undecided, so there is plenty of time heading into a general election to see events turn in favour of our arguments. All we need to do then is make sure we recieve the credit in order to then sweep up significant gains in numbers of seats.
In a sense, it is dead easy to cut waste. Even Gordon Brown does it. Middle-management programme managers in all walks of life do it. At their annual budget reviews, or whatever, they are forever finding projects that have gone pear-shaped, or gone out of fashion, or failed to deliver what was hoped for. These wasteful projects then get cut, and money is saved.
However, the same programme managers then review their many responsibilities that they are failing to meet properly, their pet ideas that have never yet been tried out, and the new demands that others are imposing upon them. The money that has been freed up by cuts is, very commonly, swiftly reallocated to allow vital new spending.
Meddling politicians of all parties may try to micro-manage the process. Programme managers will generally try to ignore the politicians. By and large, they will be right to do so. There may be some exceptions, for example when Lib Dems ask that local people’s views be paid more respect. But let’s not get too excited about this. Basically, we do not have a magic professionalism, a gene for managerial efficiency, that other politicians do not have.
None of this is to ignore the need for Vince and his colleagues to advertise their economic competence. To show you can cope in government is necessary, if you want to make a serious political appeal. But it isn’t sufficient on its own. You also need policies that are distinctive, realistic, and aimed at specific goals which people will understand. Simply claiming that you are better than the other guys at the efficient micro-management of all the myriad aspects of government is not such a policy!