If the Daily Fail is to be believed, iDave is to appoint a female Special Advisor to assess the impact of every Coalition policy on women.
Because their polling numbers amongst women are apparently quite low, coming in at, depending on which article I read, between 34% and 43%.
Obviously it goes without saying that something like 35% of women (and men) won’t vote for him (or, to be more accurate, a member of his party) simply because of the colour of the rosette on offer. What he doesn’t want to lose are the floating voters, that 15% or so who aren’t so tribal and vote depending on which way the wind is blowing.
And it seems that they don’t like him.
To be fair I can see why, given that this government is, amongst other things, driving the female state pension age towards equality faster than the previous one whilst taking measures to cap benefits which they claimed and pruning the civil service jobs which they did.
We are all, to some degree, conservative, disliking change – especially when it affects us. Thus changes, however necessary they are, mean that politicians risk alienating those voters who are affected by them. Alienate them too much and you lose elections… and it is that thought which causes consternation amongst all politicians and their advisors, not just Cameron.
Their frantic vote scrabbling therefore begs two questions:
Firstly (and I realise I am being flippant here) are we also going to get special advisors to assess how changes impact on the disabled, those of different ethnicities, sexualities, hair colour and however else humanity wishes to group itself?
Secondly (and more seriously) was it the short-term thinking of our politicians which drove the short-term thinking of the voters and thus landed us in the mess, or the other way around?