Labour are fighting against the greatest/ruthless electoral machine ever - that's what the Tories do: they win elections and by any means. I'm trying not to break into 'whataboutary' but Labour are right to call out the Tories on their lies about being the Law and Order party (the two tenets of Tory rule are 'Law and Order' and the 'Economic Competence' - the latter myth is destroyed and the former myth has to be combatted). Be interesting to see whether (and how) Labour's very pro-active (which I can imagine only came about because they were continually being told in focus groups "...that you're all the same..." so they literally have nothing to lose) present campaign will touch immigration.
Very interesting analysis from 'Labour Together' called "Red Shift" where they identify six constituencies of voters: Activist Left - Making up 18.3% of the electorate, this socially liberal group of predominantly younger voters are intent on backing Labour. Centrist Liberals - Comprising 16.5% of the country, these voters are evenly spread across age and geography, often university educated and socially liberal. In 2019 they split evenly between Conservatives and Labour, with a solid Liberal Democrat representation. Now, they're more firmly behind Labour. Disillusioned Suburbans - Accounting for 21.8% of the population, they are often economically insecure. Women and ethnic minority voters are over-represented in this group - who are left-of-centre economically and somewhat socially conservative. Patriotic Left - Representing 15% of the electorate, the partriotic left is concentrated in the 'red wall'. They are economically left-leaning and socially conservative. They are back with the party, having abandoned Labour in 2019 [my emphasis: this would be the mythical 'Traditional Labour Voter']. English Traditionalists - Are the oldest group, unlikely to have a university degree they make up 17.8% of voters. They are staunch on social issues and economically centrist - strong supporters of the Conservatives. Rural Right - 10.6% of the population, they are older retired rural voters. The strongest Conservative supporters [my emphasis: 5 & 6 combined make up around 285 of the elcrotate which just so happens to be the Tories poll rating at present]. It's interesting to see where Labour's (and Tory who will be focussing on Comfortable 'Disillusioned Suburbans' aka 'Stevenage Woman') election strategy (and advertising) will be focussed: the squeezed and Suffering 'English Traditionalists'. Interesting to see that 'Stevenage Woman' doesn't actually live in Stevenage (or in the home counties):
Appalling to read that half of the people who think they are centrist ‘liberals’ voted for Johnson last time. But it makes Labour strategy clear, don’t give either them or the ‘patriotic left’ a reason to wander again. Neither Brexit or Corbyn.
Might be time for some research into what the majority of Britons understand to be the definition. What is a woman? If Labour doesn't shake off the lunatic fringe, they may well let the whole country down. Pity it is seen as strategy. I would rather it was a matter of conviction.
That sounds almost exactly like the way Hollywood strategise modern film making, by attempting to know all of their audience. Problem is, that despite knowing how everyone ticks, when it comes down to it, they still make the same old ideological sheisse, and wonder why it isn’t more popular. Problem for them, and anyone else who relies on such “understanding” of their target audience, is that they do these things to validate themselves, and not to satisfy the punters. Like Aidy Boothroyd saying how inspirational it was learning from Winston Churchill, when what he meant was, how fantastic it was that Churchill thought the same as he did. Marketing and advertising are two of the greatest and most abused evils we have to Wade through in this modern age.
Re stats, are there any reliable figures out there that indicate how many votes Labour looses each time po-faced harridan Emily Thornbury appears in public?
‘Stand by every word’: Keir Starmer defends attack ad on Rishi Sunak Party leader says he will ‘make absolutely zero apologies for being blunt’ after facing widespread criticism over advert
I think she is one of those rare things, which is a politician who isn’t quite as awful as she comes over, which is pretty awful.
10 - 12 years ago, I really despised her (around the time of white van man, etc.), but somehow she has re-habilitated herself with me. It's probably, partly to do with the comparing her with the type of "politicians" currently on the other front bench.
The tweet about the flag was a nonsense. She didn’t even add any words, a daft mistake for anyone supposedly a professional communicator, because others will add them for you.
She was quite good on her first appearance on Matt Forde's thing (ISTR this was just before the 'White Van' incident): https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podca...ection-special-11/id595312938?i=1000457819289 She was very good on the Matt Forde's Xmas double header (with Yvette Cooper): https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podca...yvette-cooper-and/id595312938?i=1000590863346 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podca...yvette-cooper-and/id595312938?i=1000591362576
One of those stories the Tories spun into a different story “how could they”, but have ended up drawing a lot more attention to it and kept it in the media for a lot longer than it otherwise would have.
Respect to him for that. If Sunak wishes to disagree, let him do so. It reeks of political opportunity, and I find it difficult to believe that Labour-in-power will reflect the promises they are making, but let them be judged on their actions. And may everyone accept with grace the precedents they set by their own actions.
They're not so much setting precedents here as following them though. This game of pinning the policy to the leader has been a favourite attack used by the Tories and their client newspapers for ages now. Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer have all been subject of it.
And someone attacking the Labour policy is using Laffer curves - used solely by the hard-of-thinking and a certain Prof Laffer:
Yes. I remember the 'Corbyn is an anti-Semite" add that the tories ran back in the day. I think you may be missing the point of an advertising campaign being used to convey the message, which is, I assume, the only actual issue with the Sunak campaign. Otherwise, mentioning quite correctly that Corbyn's Labour had anti-Semitic tendencies, in full agreement with the Labour Party itself, a number of official bodies, and the majority of the UK public seems a little different to what is happening with Sunak. Sunak can reply on a debateable subject, and I have no problem with that. People may point out that starmer was, allegedly, on the board that recommended non custodial sentences for child sex offenses. They can duke that out in public to a conclusion, and we can all be better informed for it. Corbyn was being held to account for a given judgement, that was not simply an expression of tory opinion, and not to have discussed it, or point it out, would have been tantamount to a white wash or negligence by the tories. Racism is a nasty thing, and it needs a little sunlight disinfection, even if the people involved are your political leaders.
To be honest I agree with the sentiment however, SKS required an act of parliament to eneable his DPP pension to be considered free of tax. Glasss houses and all that. I long for the day when politicians campaign on what they would do and how rather, than criticise their opponents or throw about vague aims with no substance. Count Binface for PM.
Another one: own it - it's working: Rayner says Labour attack ad was ‘hard-hitting’ but refuses to give full backing Deputy leader says she did not share ad about child sexual abuse convictions because she was spending Easter with family
It's not, certainly not for me anyway. I didn't vote Tory last time and I was considering Labour next time. I'm the sort of voter they need to convince. But these tactics are turning me off. It's the sort of childish thing I expect in the tribal press or from rabid party members, but not sponsored by the party themselves. How are we going to expect these people to present us on the world stage with an attitude like this? Looking at the allegation more deeply Sunak wasn't even an MP for much of the period in question, let alone party leader. SKS was I think DPP for some of this time, a position which when held raised some questions regarding handling of the Saville case for example. Rayner is not my favourite MP but appears to know it's out of order but party lines say she can't say so. The line "no-one tells me what to tweet" is very telling. Labour need to pull their socks up and become a proper opposition that can hold the government to account rather than **** around with this crap which just damages their credibility, in my eyes anyway.
https://www.northwaleschronicle.co....-tax-break-reversing-lifetime-allowance-move/ It was a precedent for all DPPs, put in place by the government of the day (Tory-led coalition) and was before he entered Parliament. He's said that he hasn't used it and would include his own scheme when he reverses the change. What's the problem? It's amazing that he's doing the very thing you would want him to but you've somehow been convinced of the exact opposite.
How can those tactics ‘turn you off?’ You’ve often voted Tory, have you not? The Tories have been playing the man and not the ball since before Michael Foot’s time. Miliband and Corbyn absolutely savaged on a personal basis, along with everyone who stands in their way from union leaders to Gary Lineker.
Character assassination by rabid supporters and press is slightly different to to being done directly by the party. Bacon Sandwich gate was an Evening Standard hatchet job iirc. I thought the Tories are meant to be the nasty party? Labour should be above these sorts of tactics, especially when they are not whiter than white concerning the topics raised. I want to vote for them but I can't justify it at the moment. I vote on policy not party. I have voted all three ways, in fact 4 ways if you count the last election. Economic policy and efficient/effective governance is my main driver. Recent governance from the Tories and opposition party policies do not fill me with optimism and hence I have no clue where to vote if at all. But let's not deflect from the topic of Kier Starmer & Labour's polices by discussing perceived individual poster's affiliations. I see the Rayner has resorted to type after doing some good work regarding the topic above, and gone on to spout a load of rubbish suggesting that modest pension holders would need to work for 400 years to reach the cap that she wants to reintroduce for everyone except doctors (and ex-DPPs). Its shows absolutely no financial understanding whatsoever and this is an official Labour press release, not something extracted by a pressure interviewer. Something that should be reasoned, considered, checked etc.
Using Labour party tactics to insult me because you can't debate the subject? I'm not in the interest of defending election tactics but as you have taken the time... 1 agreed image and direction is out of order. But it a concept and a direct quote of another Labour Party member. 2 direct comment on political ability Abbott jibe is ott as I'm not convinced she's well. 3 4 5 6 7 factual if inflammatory. None attack family or make an accusation regarding being soft on child abuse. Imho different league Labour should be above these tactics, take the higher ground, win my vote.
Come one. The Tories and their newspapers work in tandem. Their attack lines are synchronised or they just simply give Tories a column to launch a personal attack. You are digging a hole here. Here’s a clue, if @iamofwfc likes your post, it’s probably gibberish.
WTF are you talking about? I literally have debated the subject by providing several examples of the things you deny exist. And if you are going to narrow it down to "attacking family" or specific crimes that suit your argument then there's no sensible debating with you. I'll leave this conversation to others.
I don't condone Labour's recent tactics at all, but pretending there is any kind of daylight between their gutter politics and the Conservative examples provided above seems unjustifiable to me. Both are unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.
Fair commrnt. I'm just saying Labour should take the more moral line, otherwise they're no better than the Tories.
