My DW wants to know why Nick Clegg is attracting female votes: She just does not get it.

[BeenBeta]

My DW has asked me to post this as she is very interested in politics and often asks what the MN vote is thinking. She is not a party worker or candidate but just interested.

It is said that Nick Clegg is bringing young people, public sector workers and women over to Lib Dem from Labour.

DW is neither young nor public sector but want to know why as a woman she should be swayed.

I'm choosing to vote Lib Dem because I agree with most of their policies, not because the party is lead by Nick Clegg or because I am a woman.

However, as a working woman one of the factors influencing my vote is because the Lib Dem manifesto promises to protect existing tax credit arrangements paying for childcare and to actually increase the hours to 20 hours per week that can be taken in batches that suit the parents (not the arbitrary 2.5 hours per session currently in place).

I imagine that will appeal to a lot of woman voters, but I am not sure that women would vote purely on that issue alone if there were other policies they substantially disagreed with.

I think it's unfair to dismiss the voting choices of people who vote based on how much they like each candidate. It's not how I would choose to vote but it's a valid one even if you believe it's a bit daft. Throughout human history we have always made snap judgements about people based on their appearance and manner. It's not altogether a daft thing to do with politicians - on the world stage a politician who is comfortable in front of the cameras, looks smart, can make points clearly, appears honest (even if not being so) will probably achieve his or her goals much more effectively than someone who looks uncomfortable in their own skin and cannot articulate an argument.

I am not a die-hard party supporter, I am a floating voter. I'm not voting for either Labour or Conservatie. I watched the first debate ready to find fault with both, but I was unexpectedly and pleasantly surprised by how sincere (even if somewhat harried) Gordon Brown seemed.
Cameron, OTOH, seemed very insincere. Combine this with a manifesto that tries to come across as family friendly and all for the people, and a couple of weeks later a poster saying 'let's cut benefits' (when the Tories have realised they have lost the middle ground to Clegg so are retreating to their natural right) and Cameron's perceived insincerity simply reinforces my idea that if I took a gamble and voted Conservative they would break a lot of manifesto promises once in power.

Rightly or wrongly, an individual's manner and appearance have a big effect on how people interpret what they say. Labelling this as sex appeal is misleading and patronising; it's more about cultivating a well-groomed, trustworthy appearance to get people prepared to listen to what you say. That's part of a politician's job surely?

Sorry, that was long.

IndigoSky that will make DS' Thomas marathons slightly more entertaining...

Oh and if you apply that to the new theme tune, then

(Brown) is vain but lots of fun
(Clegg) pulls the mail on time
and
(Cameron) toots and huffs and puffs

Not an expert on the Lib Dem manifesto but am impressed by Vince Cable - he seems to be one of the few people who a. saw the financial crisis coming and b. is prepared to tackle the City rather than let everything go back to normal mega-bucks rip off culture.

I think there's a theory that generally women are more involved in public services - a higher proportion of people working in sectors like the NHS and education are women and women in general are higher users of public services (partly because women do the lion's share of looking after other people, young and old).

I LOVE Nick Clegg

Well I actually agree with 98% of the lib dem policies but I do simply also love Nick Clegg, he is infinitely more shaggable that Gordon and 'Dave' is just a bit cringey.

he's quite clean-cut

he reminds me of of a short Peter Jones

I would rather go for a drink with Nick Clegg (as a mate) than either of the others. That doesn't make him the best candidate for PM imo.

DH would be horrified if I admitted to fancying Clegg - he was in his year at Westminster and insists he was a) a drip, b) pompous and c) dull. However we watched the debate last night and even he had to admit NC had done pretty well. I didn't see the first one & was quite impressed.

Engaging, handsome (ish), a bit posh, family man, good orator, proposing real change and promising us the world, very earnest and sincere in manner - remind you of anyone about 15 years ago? Look how that turned out...

AvadaKedavra, yep I know what you mean. I voted Labour in 1997 but I had a deep mistrust of Blair at the time which was vindicated. I feel the same way about Cameron now, but it's not a feeling I have about Clegg. Whether or not he gets a chance to disappoint us remains to be seen...

I don't understand the current Clegg mania, actually I find it quite depressing. I know he's good looking, sounds sincere and I'd rather spend an evening in the pub with him than DC or GB but I'm really sceptical about many of the pledges he's made in his manifesto.

I wonder if all the people who watched the debate last week and are now going to vote for him really believe that the Lib Dems will do all the things they say they're going to do. Let's be honest, the UK is skint, our national debt is huge and while Nick Clegg loves saying us how honest he's being in telling us about the importance of reducing the deficit, he's put forward some extremely expensive proposals.

I do wonder whether some of the people who say they really like his policies have no idea how much trouble our economy is in at the moment. Apparently only 25% of the electorate think that reducing the deficit should be a priority which is quite shocking - what on earth do the other 75% consider to be a priority??

He's an oleaginous light-weight just like David Cameron.

WilfandWilma - That's something I'm really mentally struggling with at the moment. Until this morning, I would have entirely agreed that we need to reduce our deficit by any means possible, and that means radical cuts to everything. Then I attended a conference on food security today, with a range of experts talking about the need for increased food crops in the next 40 years, and I came away thinking 'we're buggered if we cut the funding for this now'. There do seem to be some things which, if we cut the funding now, it seems we'll pay for it later.

Nice use of oleaginous there, unfit, not a word you see around much these days yet one that is perfectly suited to many politicians. Remember Leon Brittan?

Grendels - I'm sure you are right. Idiot governments over the past few years (current one included) seem to have forgotten that we are an island and while it is possible to rely on imported food while the economy is going nicely in most of the West, it leaves you horribly vulnerable in a crisis.

Have been reading wildly differing reports on the amount of food we import lately and just how self-sufficient we are compared to how self-sufficient we can be. I agree that our eye-watering deficit does need to be cut, but how would this actually affect food production? Were proposed/potential cuts to funding in terms of 'food production' covered in the conference GrendelsMum?

DW was chatting to a woman in RL about this today and they concluded it is really the X factor effect. DW and her friend are both solid Tory supporters.

It is possible that maybe women size up a candidate in different ways to men. DW admits that she does tend to size up politicians in the same way as a man in RL.

DW says she looks at a man and always asks the following question: Do I trust you and would I feel comfortable being alone with you?

Men I suspect might say: Would I want to go out for a pint with him?

Are those two questions a truer explanation of the Clegg factor? He does not offend many people and not that many people realy care that they dont know what his policies are.

Well, the issues discussed were the projected needs for food in the future to feed the growing population of the world, and the different ways in which this could be achieved. The speakers agreed that this would need to involve greatly increased crop yields, that greatly increased crop yields are theoretically possible, but that in practice, crop yields have ceased to increase across much western Europe (have actually started to dip in one or two counties). They agreed that in order to get crop yield increasing to match the theoretical possibilities, targeted investment in applied research and development was needed. One argued (and seemed to me convincing) that because research takes a long time to get into practice when it comes to this kind of applied agriculture, the research needs to start as soon as possible, in order to get benefits in, say, 10 years time. The UK Government does currently invest in research in food crops, but will they continue to?

This makes it sound very dry - it was actually a fascinating conference and I was listening to it thinking 'so basically, we act now or we're all buggered'.

Grendelsmum - one major reason that crop yields have ceased to increase across Europe is because of the removal of EU subsidy. My Dad is an ex farmer and in the 1970s crop yields rocketed because farmers started to put far more fertiliser on land to maxmise earnings from EU subsidy. It was paid on a per tone basis and I remember yields of wheat went from typically 2 tonne per acre on my Dads farm to 4 in the space of a decade.

The subsidy was removed in the 1990s so farmers reduced fertiliser input and it becamse less intensve. Yields stabilised or fell as a result. We could quickly increase yields if farmers reintroduced more intensive methods such as puttng on more fertiliser. Price rises if there were food shortages would encourage that to happen anyway.

BeenBeta - that issue was also discussed in some detail, and seen as one of the reasons for actual reductions in yield in some parts of western Europe in the recent past, but they argued that there was a limit to what increased fertiliser quantities could do alone.

Agree with Takver's first post

Yes there is a limit. Fertiliser is really bad for the environemnt too not only in terms of energy use making it but also in run off into rivers.

Grendels - my small town is home to an agricultural research station with lots of clever scientists (back in the C18th the local squire was big into experimental farming and handed over his manor or something). I just keep my fingers crossed they will come up with something, in a 'this problem is far too difficult for me to solve, hope that lot know what they are doing' kind of way.

Every time I walk past the research station, I find myself thinking nostalgically of O-level History and Turnip Townsend.

Maybe part of the reason for his popularity is because he opposes Trident renewal and perhaps by association, killing thousands of innocent people in pointless wars? That's what I like about the Lib Dems anyway. But I'd take Shirley Williams as Prime Minister before Nick Clegg any day.

I'm sure he's also the best looking, but using comments like "shaggable" in a political discussion doesn't do too much to encourage me to take this site seriously. I suspect I would be (rightly) attacked if I was to take that approach to an analysis of female parliamentary candidates!