So what went wrong for Dave?

[theyoungvisiter]

I felt like he got handed this election on a plate. How did it end up like this?

And what do you think the result means for his future?

The public saw through him.

His big strategic mistake, I think, was not disassociating himself from People Like Him. He should have dumped Osbourne and got a non-Etonian replacement.

the polls weren't phony - surely?

They just show how people do different things when it comes to putting their x in the box.

Also I think that Nick Clegg's huge lead in the polls did him a disservice, a lot of people probably thought either that they didn't need the support, or that a lib dem majority was actually a real possibility and shied away when it came to the crunch.

Being Dave, really. The electorate shied away from the Night of the Evil Toffs.

well we'll never know about the polls. I never believe polls. I think you are right that the polls made sure that a good number of Labour voters would turn out to support Labour. They wouldn't have turned out without these polls, because they had been so let down by Labour. That helped get a hung parliament.

Listening to the TV. A very probable scenario is that Clegg will ditch PR and sell us down the river in exchange for the Tories scrapping their inheritance tax plans. That would be small beer for the Tories, but would rob the public of a proper voting system. The public wouldn't notice as they would all cheer those toffs getting it up 'em by the people's champion, Clegg.

no chance claig.

LD's will not let go of electoral reform.

I hope you're right sophable. The current system is a travesty and the public deserves real PR.

The funniest thing is the gap between the MN pre-election poll and reality. I think it proves that MN is left-wing in bias. I'm not saying that in a derogatory way, btw. Just the way it is.

I think the British public are great. They saw through all the spin and hype about Clegg, and in England at least, they gave a thumbs down to Labour. Even a part of Cornwall turfed the Lib Dems out and put the Tories in. The majority of the English public who voted Tory aren't rich toffs, they were ordinary people who saw the light, ignored the hype and voted for hope.

I think the problem with the MN pre election poll was that it was self-selecting. The people who filled it in were people who'd watched the debates and held strong opinions about them.

I'm sure a proper MN census would have been closer to the July 09 figures of an even political split.

But Claig they didn't "vote for hope" or any of that guff.

They chose to give ALL the political parties a slap in the chops. No-one comes out of this election well, except, perhaps, the Greens who got their seat at last.

I don't think many people cast their vote in a positive way - most people I know cast it with a shudder at the alternatives.

I live in Essex, we are the salt of the earth . We kicked Labour out of all but two seats throughout the entire East of England. We're ordinary people, not many toffs among us, but we know what's what and who's who. There were queues at the polls that I've never seen before. We are all united and excited at the prospect of sending our message. We were in no doubt, we wanted the rascals out.

I think he went wrong by jumping on too many media bandwagons (baby P, dangerous dogs etc) and came across as a bit fickle. Always saying "we'll do something about X," but never going as far as to say what, just waiting for it to blow over and the next thing to come along. People have accepted that there will have to be a bit of belt tightening but do not trust someone so inconsistent to do it. He would have done better with clearer goals, even if the population didn't agree with them all, but to say vague things about cutting waste whilst emphasising that we need to save money just made people wary. It reeked of these people who claim you only need to eat a certain bean to lose a stone of weight a week, just doesn't quite ring true even if it is what people want to hear.

It also would have helped if he had been as vocal about criticising his candidates homophobic comments and other gaffs as he was when he was on his soapbox about people not working etc. It made it appear more forgiving of the sins of people like him, undoing any work he had done to appear like everyone else.

The fact that the daily mail didn't fully support the tories made me think that the tory right are still waiting to pounce on Cameron who is probably closer to being a lib dem than a right wing tory.

I noticed the guardian came out for Nick then seemed to forget this and went back to their pro labour tune.

Not sure what to make of it all really.

Overall Cameron was not impressive during the leader's debates and didn't say what the tory policies really meant or where the cuts would be.

I thought DC was clearer about where he would make cuts than any of the others.... MP pay, quangos, IT projects, NHS management, unnecessary paperwork sent to schools etc.
And for those of you in doubt of any of the party's policys - Mumsnet has a fantastic outline on their election page.

I think he did really well and was very respectful of the electorate in his most recent comments, saying he would behave responsibly in the event of a hung parliament. It will be interesting to see what happens next...

snowlady, I agree with you. Cameron was pathetic in the debates and missed open goals on purpose. Clegg was built up deliberately to weaken Cameron. I agree with you that Cameron is very close to Clegg, and is like a Lib Dem or a Tory wet, rather than a right-wing Tory. I think Cameron and Clegg and the media and the Guardian all wanted a hung parliament with Cameron and Clegg doing a deal. This would mean that Cameron has an excuse to carry out Lib Demish policies i.e. support for the EU etc. and the right-wing Tories would be unable to create a fuss. Apparently Conservative Home say that party members were not pleased with how Cameron and his advisors carried out the campaign, but Cameron told them to leave it to him. He didn't attack, he missed open goals, he blew it with his "accentuate the positive" softly softly approach. But I think he got what he wanted, unfortunately Tory supporters haven't quite got what they should have had.

The whole, i want to pass billions of public sector savings to my rich mates in tax cuts didn't go down too well either.

Because of scandalously ignorant and incompetent knowledge of process and policy such as this interview?

Because 70 of their Social Policies were written by a bigotted narrow-minded fundementalist crank who hasn't even won her own seat?

Because he is too slick, modern and urban for the rural and farming diehard (and I have huge sympathy with the farmers' cause in voting against Europe), while being too liberal for the old Thatcherites?

For me, I couldn't get over what an intellectual light weight he was.

Many voters had serious misgivings about Labour but remained unconvinced by DC because he came across as so much fluff. They just stayed home instead.

Litchick, agree. I think if you picked Conservative party members at random, they could have done a better job than Cameron did and they would have delivered a crushing victory.

Cameron didn't even bring up Mrs. Duffy and bigotgate. I knew that he wouldn't. It would have been too much like scoring an open goal. Brown didn't stand a chance with the history of mistakes and scandals that had been part of Labour's reign. And yet Brown was given get out of jail cards time and time again, not even questioned about the scandals and mistakes.

Having said that, I still think Cameron will end up in power, but in a watered down form, which is what suited him all along.

Litchick and YoungVisitor - you speak the truth.

What went wrong for Dave? Where to start?

1. Intellectual laziness:

His whole critiicism of "Big Government" was just a wholesale import of US Republican ideology which is just not relevant here. I am not aware of British people going round moaning that the' government is too big. Too wasteful, yes. But "too big", that's just not part of people's concern here.

1. His response to "Government is too big = big society". Say what? What a load of rubbish. So, cut back local authorities, surestart, local services and expect voluntary sector, families, charities, local business to pick up the slack. why, pray tell, would they do that?

1. Surrounding himself with OEs. Yes, class war may be over, but it smacks of Old School Tory Cronyism to hand out the top jobs to a load of school friends.

1. Weird emphasis on "passing on wealth to one's children is the most fundamental human desire" (paraphrasing from the second debate). If you have a huge country pile, stacks of cash in Coutt's and a town house in Chelsea, maybe you are indoctrinated from birth to preserve it from birth. But for most people, passing on wealth is low down on the list of priorities and certainly not a fundamental human desire. People want to give their kids a good education, get a decent pension, ensure their kids stay away from drugs, worry about knife crime, want short waiting times if illness strikes. Inheritance? Most people can only dream of passing on wealth.

1. People remember the bad old days of Thatcher, Major, sleaze, poll tax, clause 28, closure of the mines, all the rest.

I cannot believe Cameron is saying "the coun try has voted for change"...;they simply haven't. They have voted in a very mixed bag way, no clear message. Gordon Brown actually INCREASED his share of the vote in his own constituency. So much for people wanting to be rid of him at any cost.

After 13 years of New Labour, Iraq, expenses scandal, transfer of power to new prime minister without vote by the country, financial crisis, sale of country's gold reserves at the worst possible time, etc etc ...and STILL the Tories can't win, it just shows to what point the country does NOT trust the Tories.

Bang on analysis VandT

good post, vandt

"After 13 years of New Labour, Iraq, expenses scandal, transfer of power to new prime minister without vote by the country, financial crisis, sale of country's gold reserves at the worst possible time, etc etc"

but Camrron hardly attacked any of these policies. Instead his message was Big Society, cutting waste and inheritance tax benefits for the richest in society. He couldn't do more to shoot himself in the foot if he tried.

v good post vodka - I think you hit on many good points.