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?!?