Cameron and valence

Cameron and the valence effect.
At a recent lecture I heard by David Denver, emeritus professor of politics at Lancaster University and a respected commentator on elections, he noted that voting was now based on ‘valence’ more than ever.
Valence is an expression used by political scientists to describe how voters tend to be attracted, or repulsed by the general characteristics of parties and politicians, rather than specific policy issues. So some may support the Conservatives, for example, because they seem to more competent, Labour’s attraction may be its commitment to principles while the Liberal Democrats are often seen as the least corrupt of the parties.
The leadership debates in the last election campaign, Denver suggests, attached the question of leadership to the valence effect. So people became attracted – albeit temporarily perhaps - by the way in which Clegg was leading his party rather than its policies. Though the ‘televised debate effect’ proved to be short-lived, Denver may well be right that leadership is becoming an even more pivotal factor than it has been in the past when it comes to party support.
If valence and leadership qualities are now permanently linked, David Cameron looks to be leading his rivals by some distance. Clegg has been seriously wounded by the tuition fees issue and his own uncertain performances in the Commons while Miliband still looks inexperienced and lacks any definable image. By contrast, despite the travails of the coalition, David Cameron looks assured, confident, calm and competent. If Denver is right, it may not matter how the rest of the government performs, when the next electoral test comes along Cameron may well carry the day on his own. Nick Clegg, in contrast, may have fallen from becoming his party’s main asset to its biggest liability.