Forum menu
You're right. It's almost certainly far worse for Jc than the polls suggest.
Those damn polls and their Labour bias eh?
😆
Not their fault tories are rude and dont answer the phone /letter/e-mail 😉
Well Paddy Ashdown thinks the polls predicting a hung parliament are what made the 'SNP threat' argument more compelling and lost them seats and won the Tories the election.
Makes you think anyway. 😉
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/10/28/camerons-rating-down-corbyns-down-more/
These are still early days. Corbyn has time to improve his ratings. He is not as unpopular as Ed Miliband was for much of his time as leader (though Miliband still enjoyed a net positive rating at the same early point in his leadership). But after voters have had some weeks to judge Corbyn, and at a time when the Government is in trouble, our figures should give him and his party pause for though
as dave and gideon guide us through another crash and possible brexit who knows what the polls mean?
good point about more pensioners = more tory votes too
Well Paddy Ashdown thinks the polls predicting a hung parliament are what made the 'SNP threat' argument more compelling and lost them seats and won the Tories the election.
I never vote but I voted this time exclusively because of the polls suggesting a Labour/SNP coalition was highly likely.
I'm not saying if my vote was to encourage or resist that.
Are the PFLP one of the good militia that Cameron wants to support or nasty jihadists or both?
I will advocate communism, equality and orgies for all if Labour denounces or take BritLand out of the formation of EUSSR federal ZM state.
I will raise the red flag and make myself available for Dear Leader nomination. I will. 😛
My income is so low now (hopefully once become elite I will be richer than most) even communists are richer than me so let's see how communist are those communists. 😛
Down with EUSSR ZM federal state ...! 😀
Arise islander BritLand!
(... while towing the screaming and kicking Scots-Picts-land of Freeddooomm behind ... they have to follow or they will starve or be enslaved by EUSSR ... The family of fish Leaders (your current leaders) will not feed you trust me ... )
I thought Corbyn sounded more confident/ at ease at pmqs today.
Those Tories are absolute bastards they went out to win an election.
Thought it was an interesting and very illuminating article - in reference to the earlier talk about polls and the last election. Not really sure what point you're trying to make. However if you're comfortable with the levels of cynicism and fear-mongering on offer from Lynton Crosby I guess that says something.
Great article, Grum. Really interesting to see the story behind the Fallon comments. If true there's a real lesson there about Trump - when politicians say dumb things, there might be a cunning plan behind it.
Having said that, I can't help but wonder if an "it was all part of the plan" narrative has been attached to the campaign that didn't exist at the time IYSWIM.
Indeed. Good find grum. (If a little depressing when read.)
Good read, and depressing too; seems like to stand a chance of winning an election you need millions of £s and an Alistair Campbell/ Lynton Crosby/ Malcolm Tucker
So if Labour were going to apply the same technique now and reinforce an existing fear about the Conservatives, it would have to be the corruption angle.
They would have to continually refer to Cabinet members links to business/banking/retirement jobs/donations/etc.
Also - pointing out lies (and directly calling them that).
there might be a cunning plan behind it.
Overly generous, perhaps?
Interesting article grum, thanks, but as they say history is written by the winners. Crosby has to argue that he is worth his £ms and the book (and the article) are probably best seen in that light.
But IMO, the Tory victory was more to do with the failure of others - Labour in Scotland and the Lib Dems (remember them, the previous new, fresh approach to UK politics) as example.
For all the attacks on Wallace he added more votes that CMD but still ended up losing and carrying the can for it!!
But hats of to the Crosby self-publicity! A master of the dirty craft, but why spend £ms when you can leave it to Dan Hodges in the Torygraph!!
The first-past-the-post parliamentary system did the job it is supposed to do — return a majority in the House of Commons for the party with the most votes. But the result nonetheless came from such a distortion of the actual underlying votes that you can argue it's better evidence for voting law reform than for keeping the status quo.
Not sure I agree with the conclusion necessarily, but the point is valid.
as they say history is written by the winners. Crosby has to argue that he is work his £ms
This, I suspect.
“The whole thing was based on a very simple message: only two people could be prime minister. One of them is weak, the other is David Cameron. Cameron won the election because he was the more convincing prime minister.
Is a reasonable conclusion - but still ignores the reality of the voting patterns!
And dear old labour are still fighting the wrong battle - fail to learn the lessons of history and....
Alex, whatever they choose lets hope its better than the "austerity" and "privatising the NHS" clichés. Or perhaps the old ones still work - eg Labour cant be trusted. Who knows!!
I think that article is very interesting regards the focus on simple messages and swing seats.
There was this as well yesterday:
What was Lenins phrase? "This bourgeois labour party" 😳
Oops that might not fit the current narrative well, but hey, one only has to look at the background of the new Prince of Darkness who is running the show.
His school even has its own harder entrance exam to weed out the majority!! And a tough one, especially the Maths questions 😉
John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw and a critic of Corbyn, called last week for the party to introduce a mansion tax for Labour members living in £1m homes.
That is quite amusing !
If Corbyn can prove that his policies can improve the lives of those at the bottom, shouldn't be too hard as the Tories pick apart the welfare state, then there is a hour for him in 2020.
The only problem will be that ever increasing grey vote, the Tories will be seen to be protecting their pensions and winter fuel allowances, even as they bland their huge cuts to council services on the usual right wing bogeymen
They would have to continually refer to Cabinet members links to business/banking/retirement jobs/donations/etc.
Much as I admire Corbyn's ambition to have a more mature and honest politics, I've often said in the past (in fact I think I said it on the election thread), that the labour party are far too nice when campaigning and could learn a thing or two from the tories. The tories think nothing of telling bare faced, transparent lies, and they employ them in a highly effective way to construct a narrative which the electorate willingly accepts as fact. Labour could easily do the same. It's not like they would be short of ammunition, and the corruption/privileged elite angle would be a highly effective line of attack. Of course that would require the PLP to give up their vendetta against Corbyn, and focus their energy on the real enemy, but they seem to like going for the easier target so I'm not holding my breath.
the corruption/privileged elite angle would be a highly effective line of attack
You think or would it be pointed out as a hypocrisy and also being anti-aspiration (the elite bit not the corruption)?
dazh - agreed (although they really don't have to resort to bare faced, transparent lies)
Much as I admire Corbyn's ambition to have a more mature and honest politics, I've often said in the past (in fact I think I said it on the election thread), that the labour party are far too nice when campaigning and could learn a thing or two from the tories.
“Labour thought that because the Conservatives did not win 2010, when they had Gordon Brown as their leader and the economy was in the toilet, the Tories would be unable to win [in 2015] and all they had to do was sit on the horse and hang on,” says Crosby. “They never said sorry for their mishaps, they never really did an honest review of their policies, they never had a story about the future for the British people. They just did not do the work. They were intellectually lazy and thought themselves intellectually superior.”
Crosby may be loathsome, but he knows how to win elections.
They just did not do the work. They were intellectually lazy and thought themselves intellectually superior.
They looked just as likely to do the same post 2015 had one of the other leadership candidates won.
That was one of the things that put many off. They thought that if they just sat in the middle and appeared neutral, they would win.
thing about the "the dead cat" approach is it needs the media to be complicit, if in the Fallon example the press still ran with Milibands crack down on nodoms for example then no one notices the dead cat.
It's not complicity, political journos do not need to be 'in on it' to prefer to write about Fallon viciously insulting Milliband as opposed to Milliband making some rather dry but worthy proposals about ending a tax loophole.
Shakespearean tragedy of betrayal or midweek accountancy report involving some bloke called Ashcroft?
The thing about the dead cat is that it cannot be ignored/not noticed.
That's the point of a dead cat though - it's impossible to ignore - press included (in fact the press are probably the most needy - not necessarily complicit).
Edit: Beaten by 12 seconds!
Where's the bit about "Stuffed by Salmon"? Forget the in-the-pocket visual....
Its quite extraordinary when political parties and companies appoint leaders that are obviously not correct. JC merely follows on from the likes of Milliband and IDS, Howard and Hague (at the time) on the other side and that lady from the Greens (what was here name?). Why do they do this, other than to buy time? Alternatively, at what point did JC and the rest realise that the stunt to put up a token, wider candidate might actually back-fire?
Its quite extraordinary when political parties and companies appoint leaders that are obviously not correct.
Presumably because the other options are even worse? The funniest thing about Corbyn being elected is what it says about the calibre of Burnham, Cooper, and the other one who I've already forgotten.
For once I actually agree with you there, the article smacks of revisionism.teamhurtmore - Member
Interesting article grum, thanks, but as they say history is written by the winners.
in on it, [url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6403420/tories-commit-renewing-trident.html ]just a little[/url]
Presumably because the other options are even worse?
+1
Blimey I'd forgotten Howard even was Tory leader!! That says it all really.
the labour party are far too nice when campaigning
That's very good
the corruption/privileged elite angle would be a highly effective line of attack
Probably as effective as the NHS attack line
For once I actually agree with you there, the article smacks of revisionism.
If you read the Spectator you would know most of this was said contemporaneously, so not revisionist.
Probably as effective as the NHS attack line
Well they could easily combine the two when you do a minimal amount of digging around Jeremy Hunt's and other tories links to private health lobby groups and providers. As an example, how hard is it for the labour party to come out with a simple message such as 'The tories are privatising the NHS so that they and their friends can make huge amounts of money from it whilst everyone else can't get a GP appointment'. Not exactly difficult is it? Yet this simple message gets lost amongst all the intellectual/bureaucratic claptrap about service provision, commissioning, targets, PFI, funding mechanisms etc.
Not exactly difficult is it?
Nor difficult to falsify...better options must be available surely
But all the spin in the world wont matter if the front man/woman is wrong. Get past that step first, then worry about the rest of it...
'The tories are privatising the NHS so that they and their friends can make huge amounts of money from it whilst everyone else can't get a GP appointment'.
Not catchy and also fairly easy to attack Labour on as the gave GPs more money for reduced hour working and increased use of PFI.
None of which is the same as trying to privatise the NHS so that your mates can profit.No one would ever claim that this is Labour policy- there is a difference between a bad policy and not supporting the entire thing.
Why not just accept a perception about your beloved party rather than try to negate it by attacking labour for something different -Ie actually engage with the point made rather than use it to attack Labour
SOmetimes this place is just so partisan we dont even pretend to discuss the actual issue.
It's not catchy no, but then I'm not suggesting it should be a slogan, just a message that they need to implant in people's heads. Other more catchy slogans, advertising, and simply saying it aloud on the news and in the press would achieve this. This is what the tories do, and people end up believing it whether it's true or not. As for labour's own culpability, well there's enough space now between the current leadership and Blair/Brown to get away with it.
Dazh, if there is one thing labour has done well, its to implant that idea in peoples' minds even though it is false - STW threads demonstrate that clearly. But that's a bit tired now - they need a better narractive - after a better choice of leader clearly (if polls are to be believed 😉 )
well there's enough space now between the current leadership and Blair/Brown to get away with it.
Is there? After all Corbyn is attacked for going back to the 70's and Cameron for being like Thatcher. People have long memories in politics.
Worth pointing out that Labour are already more trusted than the Tories on the NHS, so is this going to be a productive line of attack?
Labour have banged on about the NHS for years to little avail. Despite there being only 24 hours to save the NHS from the Tories, my wife continues to have regular out patient appointment at NHS hospitals which cost her nothing. This is obviously a quite extraordinary achievement.
They would have to continually refer to Cabinet members links to business/banking/retirement jobs/donations/etc.
Don't they have to be careful throwing stones in that particular glass house?
There is nothing extraordinary about you defending the tories- Perhaps you could reference it tp public perception and trusting the Tories or The junior doctors assuming you wish to be balanced rather than just partisanDespite there being only 24 hours to save the NHS from the Tories, my wife continues to have regular out patient appointment at NHS hospitals which cost her nothing. This is obviously a quite extraordinary achievement.
Christ these threads are not even folk discussing issues they are just going i support this party
Its blindingly obvious that the tories are not trusted on the NHS and its not hard to see why.
FFS can we actually engage on the issue rather than just roll out party soundbites?
Labour have banged on about the NHS for years to little avail.
I'm not arguing that, I'm suggesting they should go for the corruption angle and use the NHS, among other things as a vehicle. Anyway, this is just one example, the point is that they could be more aggressive, and a little less scrupulous when it comes to campaigning.
Well based on leaflet analysis by Nottingham Uni apparently Labour had the most negative campaign and UKIP the least.
[url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/05/revealed-the-party-with-the-most-negative-election-campaign/ ]Party with Most Negative Election Campaign[/url]
poor way of working it out whereby one negative comment is equivalent to 5 and the "severity" has no bearing on the "negativity
Still at least we seem to be moving away from just attacking the party we dont like by cheery picking stuff to suit 🙄
😀
Have you worked out your own political bias yet? you seem the only one who is unsure of which side you lean.
Still at least I still know you are reading even if you continue to know your limits and sulk 😉
Also the definition* of attacking a party means that UKIP will have been able to rant incessantly about the EU but not be considered "negative"
*the issues covered, the types of images used, and whether the party talked about its opponents.
Christ these threads are not even folk discussing issues they are just going i support this party
Unforunately we can't all be paragons of even-handedness like yourself.
I wasn't actually defending the Tories, I was just pointing out the Labour's NHS assertions were hyperbole and that relying on them and even more unfounded allegations of corruption are unlikely to get them much further with the electorate than they have in the last two elections.
Its blindingly obvious that the tories are not trusted on the NHS and its not hard to see why.
Not that obvious - [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/david-cameron-ed-miliband-trust-nhs-survey ]this poll had Cameron ahead[/url] - but generally it is fair to say the NHS is a much better issue for Labour, but tis alone is insufficient to win an election.
I wasn't actually defending the Tories, I was just pointing out the Labour's NHS assertions were hyperbole and that relying on them and even more unfounded allegations of corruption are unlikely to get them much further with the electorate than they have in the last two elections.
Quite, but how dare you continue with such sober analysis!! 😉
Not that obvious - this poll had Cameron ahead
😀 but a tad old mefty, c'mon 😀
I was just pointing out the Labour's NHS assertions were hyperbole and that relying on them and even more unfounded allegations of corruption are unlikely to get them much further with the electorate than they have in the last two elections.
You mean like the tories assertion that labour 'crashed the economy'? This is my point, building a popular narrative (god I hate that word) and telling the truth are not necessarily dependent on one another.
On a related note, I wonder how the tories are planning on spinning a new financial crisis if and when it happens on their watch. This time even they won't be able to blame it on the labour party.
True dazh, you may have a point. Just look north of the border...the currency is an asset (no really), the NHS is safe in our hands (no re... 😉 ), we are anti-austerity but can still compete on low corporation tax etc (ditto)
And it was swallowed hook, line and sinker without any reference to their record in power. Remarkable!
Politics eh? The next thing will be asking these chancers to run more and more of the economy. Imagine that?!?
You mean like the tories assertion that labour 'crashed the economy'? This is my point, building a popular narrative (god I hate that word) and telling the truth are not necessarily dependent on one another.
Thing is, that its no good calling it a lie when theres an element of truth in it.
I refer you back to the comments by Blair in 'A Journey' and Joshua Chambers that I quoted some time ago here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/question-for-those-who-voted-conservative/page/2
its the fact that when the Conservatives were building the narrative of of 'crashing the economy' Labour chose not to engage with it, but distance themselves from the past and either ignore the allegations, or castigate them as a 'bare faced lie' and refuse to accept [b]any[/b] responsibility - if they had said "yes we made some mistakes but it wasn't all our fault" then people probably would have taken that on board, but Labours position of flat denial was, and remains, untenable.
Blair was spot on in his analysis on this.
On a related note, I wonder how the tories are planning on spinning a new financial crisis if and when it happens on their watch. This time even they won't be able to blame it on the labour party.
If we stay in, its because of the EU, if we leave, its because we left the EU, either way its not the Tories fault, it was decided by referendum (They have been taking notes from the SNP 😉 )
I was at a conference in C'bridge at the time of the first poll that indicated a yes in the Scottish indie vote - I was with two senior Tory and Labour ministers/shadows at the time and challenged them both on why they did not counter the blatant lies being spouted by yS.
Apparently, this is not the current strategy (as taught by the pros (sic) coming from the US). They prefer not to go to head-to-head but rather to move to their own ground instead. Almost cost us all in Scotland. Pretty crass advice IMO
Labour tried unsuccessfully to blame the banks - with Brown always referring to the Global Financial crisis caused by the banks as a ploy. Worked for a bit, but not enough in the end.
The more rabid Tories/tolerant UKIPers 😉 try the same with migrants now
if they had said "yes we made some mistakes but it wasn't all our fault"
So the labour party is required to be balanced and even-handed, whilst the tories are allowed to throw around blatantly untrue accusations whilst denying their own culpability? It really is amazing the difference in standards that the two sides have to uphold.
As an aside, where are we on the resignations versus sackings pendulum these days? Are resignations still on top?
So the labour party is required to be balanced and even-handed, whilst the tories are allowed to throw around blatantly untrue accusations whilst denying their own culpability? It really is amazing the difference in standards that the two sides have to uphold.
Helps when you've got virtually all of the press and media under your control/on side to 'set the agenda' doesn't it.
[s]A not unfair criticism in the main to be fair but this is not a debate its just tories citing things. [/s]\sorry I meant to deny I am partidan and that I am bashing one side and explain how my comments were moderate, fair and reasonable...you know like you did 😉Unforunately we can't all be paragons of even-handedness like yourself.
No issue with the even handed nature of the rest of your post 😀
Keep it up 😛
So the labour party is required to be balanced and even-handed, whilst the tories are allowed to throw around blatantly untrue accusations whilst denying their own culpability? It really is amazing the difference in standards that the two sides have to uphold.
As THM said: "history is written by the winners" - or as Tony Blair put it:
[i]If Labour wants to come back, it has to realise just how quickly defeat has altered the political landscape. It means the Tories get to clear up the economic deficit and define its nature, and can do so while pointing the finger of blame at the previous government.
[/i]
Helps when you've got virtually all of the press and media under your control/on side to 'set the agenda' doesn't it.
You mean like Blair did?
Just answer the question- its not even a question
Obviously having the press repeat the lie helps them tremendously and no one - well you can "argue" anything" would argue the press is anythign other than mainly on The tory side - and the BBC increasingly scared of annoying them whilst the charter issue is real.
Short term history is written by the winners long term it is not.
As THM said: "history is written by the winners" - or as Tony Blair put it:
There's a huge difference between defining recent history, and changing the goalposts which allows one party to pretty much say anything they like with no comeback, whereas the other party must show complete transparency, honesty and objectivity. I use the word very advisedly, but we are still supposed to have some form of democratic accountability.
The last thing labour needs is anyone reporting anything they say at the moment. A media blackout could only help JC in the polls.
😀
especially given the blatant media bias!! 😉
Brown shirts at Auntie
Apparently, this is not the current strategy (as taught by the pros (sic) coming from the US). They prefer not to go to head-to-head but rather to move to their own ground instead. Almost cost us all in Scotland. Pretty crass advice
But you won! Doesn't that vindicate the strategy?
No it's doesn't. That's the danger of "winning" - far too easy to draw the wrong conclusions as the Crosby stuff highlights only too well.
yS came very close to pulling off one of the great con tricks of recent political history - not seen since the lies over the original entry into Europe. At least in that case the guilty parties have largely admitted their deceipt.
Democratic accoutability? For better or worse, isn't that the point of elections?
There's a huge difference between defining recent history, and changing the goalposts which allows one party to pretty much say anything they like with no comeback, whereas the other party must show complete transparency, honesty and objectivity. I use the word very advisedly, but we are still supposed to have some form of democratic accountability.
Like it, don't like it, no skin off my nose - it worked!
You could argue that what the Tories did with the economy is exactly what Labour successfully did with NHS privatisation and student loans, but you don't seem to be overly upset about them lying through their teeth to create a false narrative on those issues...
Apparently the Shadow cabinet was briefed that May elections will be "not so good" (my quote)
Major loss of council seats and control in a number of Midland constituencies (exactly the sort of ground they must be winning to regain power)
Loss of their effective majority in the Welsh parliament
Loss of every FPTP seat in Holyrood with only representation coming from awards of seats on overall vote percentage
Rumours of more senior departures
Who said that?
briefed that May elections will be "not so good"[b] (my quote)[/b]
😀
but you don't seem to be overly upset about them lying through their teeth to create a false narrative on those issues...
On the contrary, a cursory look through my past posts on this and other subjects will show that I'm no apologist for new labour and their disastrous experiments with PFI etc. However the technicalities of hospital and school building and university funding hardly amount to a 'narrative' on a par with ' labour crashed the economy' or some other fiction like 'fixing the roof when the sun is shining' etc.
Loss of their effective majority in the Welsh parliament, if that comes true then Labour are well and truly ****ed. The whole cynical point of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were to cement Labours position in those areas. It's possible that within 15 years of them being setup that they'll control neither!
Was Blair Labours answer to David Lloyd-George? I don't think that was the legacy he was looking for 😆
Just like how Labour were due a crushing defeat at the last by-election and the National Front would make massive gains at the last French election.
It's a shame when dreams don't match up to reality isn't it jamba - but it's ok your astonishing ability to blithely carry on convincing yourself how right you are about everything remains undimmed. 😆
he whole cynical point of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were to cement Labours position in those areas. It's possible that within 15 years of them being setup that they'll control neither!
The pint of the Scotch Parliament was to head off the independence movement - the Scotch should be given enough power so that they didn't want to bother asking for more. Unfortunately many in the electorate thought the Scottish government did such an amazing job that they should go independent!
It's all good news that labour lost control of London, Scotland and Wales (and were never really in NI), all of which devolved - it's called functioning democracy.
Unfortunately many in the electorate thought the Scottish government did such an amazing job that they should go independent!
No danger of that with the Welsh Assembly 😆
The whole cynical point of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were to cement Labours position in those areas.
Probably why they used PR in both assemblies- to cement their power it woud clearly be an effective method.
By all means object to them but at least try and make the reason one that is real and not just a fiction of your own making
your astonishing ability to blithely carry on convincing yourself how right you are about everything remains undimmed.
Its the only faculty he has that has not been dimmed 😉
it's called functioning democracy.
I suppose attempting to gerrymander constituency borders, excluding swathes of (mostly poor) people from the electoral role, cutting direct govt funding for opposition parties, and changing the law to undermine the financial security of your main competitor also fit into your neat concept of 'functioning democracy'? Some others might call it a flagrant and transparent attempt to rig future elections but I guess that depends on what side of the fence you're on.
...attempting to [b]un[/b]gerrymander constituency borders...