Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 09, 2023, 10:03:39 AM
-
This latest twitter campaign for Labour, see below link, was bad to start with. That despite it immediately causing ructions, it continued, and yet appears to have a lack of official backing, would be worrying. It shows eitherba lack of control, or a lack of thought, or both The sad part is that it utilises data as if they are not about people.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-continues-rishi-sunak-attack-ad-campaign-despite-backlash/ar-AA19Dhdm
-
Deeply disturbing.
Given that Starmer was subject to this very kind of attack re: Saville and then talked about a better type of politics, I can't imagine what persuaded him to indulge in this unpleasant and personal campaign. There would have been other ways of highlighting this government's appalling record on crime without resorting to a tactic that allows the Tories to deflect criticism.
It really is very poor.
-
Deeply disturbing.
Given that Starmer was subject to this very kind of attack re: Saville and then talked about a better type of politics, I can't imagine what persuaded him to indulge in this unpleasant and personal campaign. There would have been other ways of highlighting this government's appalling record on crime without resorting to a tactic that allows the Tories to deflect criticism.
It really is very poor.
The indications are that he didn't know about it but since it came out on Thursday has done nothing to control it.
-
Deeply disturbing.
Given that Starmer was subject to this very kind of attack re: Saville and then talked about a better type of politics, I can't imagine what persuaded him to indulge in this unpleasant and personal campaign. There would have been other ways of highlighting this government's appalling record on crime without resorting to a tactic that allows the Tories to deflect criticism.
It really is very poor.
Looks like he's gone all Edith Piaf
https://archive.vn/4a1BH
-
Looks like he's gone all Edith Piaf
https://archive.vn/4a1BH (https://archive.vn/4a1BH)
It's a shame he hasn't gone all David Blunkett (apart from the mail)...one of the most pointed criticisms came from David Blunkett, the former Labour home secretary, who said he had been left “close to despair” by what he described as a “deeply offensive” advert, which he said marked a descent into “gutter” politics.
In a comment piece for the Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11950855/My-party-better-brand-gutter-politics-writes-DAVID-BLUNKETT.html), he wrote: “Once you resort to personal abuse, you create the risk that Britain’s public discourse will degenerate even further – to the levels that we have seen recently in the US.
-
Interesting take on it
https://www.easterneye.biz/the-highs-and-lows-of-political-campaigning/
-
Never mind the lying, feel the width
https://archive.vn/Nc8Fl
-
https://subscribe.bylinetimes.com/product/digital-gangsters/
Online campaigning has transformed politics worldwide in the last 5 years. Electoral earthquakes such as Brexit and the Trump Presidency had online campaigning at their heart.
Ian Lucas was a key player in the world-leading Parliamentary investigation which revealed the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the dark role of Facebook and a political cover up leading to 10 Downing Street.
-
Deeply disturbing.
Given that Starmer was subject to this very kind of attack re: Saville and then talked about a better type of politics, I can't imagine what persuaded him to indulge in this unpleasant and personal campaign. There would have been other ways of highlighting this government's appalling record on crime without resorting to a tactic that allows the Tories to deflect criticism.
It really is very poor.
Yes they should have waited for Lynton Crosby to be wheeled out. Let him play dirty, win it again for the tories and twiddle thumbs in opposition.
Because of the strange sado masochistic relationship the English voter has with their Tory masters I'm afraid the Conservatives are likely in in perpetuity.
-
Yes they should have waited for Lynton Crosby to be wheeled out. Let him play dirty, win it again for the tories and twiddle thumbs in opposition.
Because of the strange sado masochistic relationship the English voter has with their Tory masters I'm afraid the Conservatives are likely in in perpetuity.
So you are a cheerleader for lying.
-
Yes they should have waited for Lynton Crosby to be wheeled out. Let him play dirty, win it again for the tories and twiddle thumbs in opposition.
Because of the strange sado masochistic relationship the English voter has with their Tory masters I'm afraid the Conservatives are likely in in perpetuity.
Kind of the point. The tories have the best liars and the best lies. You can't beat them at a game they play so well. You have to find another way.
-
I actually think that the original ad was pretty effective, and with the roll out of more using the same basic formula I think this will prove to be a pretty effective campaign.
When I first saw the ad I assumed it was for the Tories (their territory to claim to be tough on law and order). So it was a jolt when the core was about how many people convicted of child sexual assault didn't go to prison, and then realised this was a Labour ad. I suspect plenty of others did the same.
But the point of the ads is that it does a number of things:
First it asks people to judge the government on its actions, not its words. Hence the notion that if you haven't taken actions your words ring hollow.
Secondly it places Sunak (who let's face it is PM and previously Chancellor) front and centre of the tory failures. This is an attempt to chip away at the 'like Sunak, hate the Tories' opinion of some as is the topic of another thread.
Finally it doesn't allow Sunak to effectively say 'hey I've only been PM for a few months, I'm not responsible for the last 13 years'. Rather it is based on a continuity of tory-led administrations from 2010 onwards and that anyone leading the tories must take responsibility for that entire record.
Also smart to put the controversial one out first, knowing there are countless more to come (which apparently includes local-focussed ones). If they'd put out an anodyne one first, who would have noticed - hardly anyone. Put this one out first and it's gone viral, and as all the others have the same basic format, but different message there is easy visual recognition.
Finally - I don't buy the 'oh the tories are allowed to play dirty ... and win, but Labour must play clean and lose'. Politics is politics and if it is fine for one it is fine for the other. And let's not forget that Labour don't have the right wing attack press to do much of their dirty work for them ... for free. And again that's another reason why this campaign is politically rather inspired. I gather that it has cost them virtually nothing as they didn't spend to get the adverts placed - nope the massive recognition of the ads is all don't to viral free sharing on facebook, twitter etc.
-
Well, all I know is you can't take the moral high ground and play in the gutter at the same time without sounding mightily hypocritical.
I fear this will not end well.
-
Well, all I know is you can't take the moral high ground and play in the gutter at the same time without sounding mightily hypocritical.
I fear this will not end well.
Who said anything about the moral high ground.
I think Labour have often failed when they've attempted to portray themselves as somehow morally 'better' than the tories, because clearly the people they need to convince - floating voters - aren't likely to be such moral absolutists. And actually these people will sometimes vote tory and sometimes vote labour, so portraying labour as somehow being morally better implies these people's choices were, at times (when they voted tory) morally wrong - not good politics.
No, better to identify when and why the tories have failed, and in particular appeared to have claimed one thing and delivered something else entirely (hence the adverts) - well actually delivered very little. And not to appeal to 'morals' but to the political instincts of the voters. Hence the basic message on the first ad - why on earth are you voting tory if you think child sex offenders should be locked up - look at their record and judge them on that.
Having been heavily involved in the 1997 campaign I don't remember labour focussing on moral high ground (except in one respect, more on that later) - their basic line was;
The tories have failed to deliver and their record is woeful
The tories can't govern as they are riven with ideological divisions
The tories have run out of ideas as they've been in power for ever
Labour can be trusted to do better and will focus on pragmatic solutions, not ideology
Time for a change
Sound familiar.
The only 'moral high ground stuff' was on sleaze - but that largely links to being in power too long and is evident in spades today too.
-
Well, all I know is you can't take the moral high ground and play in the gutter at the same time without sounding mightily hypocritical.
I fear this will not end well.
How can it "end well"?
But, as people vote for liars and cheats, surely that is what they will get?
-
I fear this will not end well.
End well for whom?
You do realise that so-called dirty politics has been with us for decades. Remember the demon eyed Blair ads in the run up to 1997, and actually the current ads are almost a carbon copy of a series of ads that pinned Gordon Brown personally to perceived failures of government, including not locking up convicted criminals.
Actually there is a big issue these days with campaign ads as they are too easy to mock up and spoof. And that makes it more tricky if you have a campaign ad with your own leader on it, as a spoof makes your leader look stupid. Anyone remember those ridiculous 'airbrushed' Cameron ads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249616/Airbrushed-change-spoofs-David-Camerons-election-poster-swamp-web.html
So if you are going to use a recognisable figure - better an opposition one as a spoof is still likely to make that person look, at best, a bit ridiculous.
-
How can it "end well"?
But, as people vote for liars and cheats, surely that is what they will get?
I meant not end well for the Labour Party.
The rest of your statement is unfortunately true.
-
You do realise that so-called dirty politics has been with us for decades.
Gosh, thanks for enlightening little old me. I never would have realised that without your help.
I wasn't ever disputing that. I was disputing the wisdom, or otherwise, of the Labour party trying to gain the upper hand by using this method. I don't think it will work, you evidently do. Time will tell. I don't see the need for a thesis on the issue.
-
Gosh, thanks for enlightening little old me. I never would have realised that without your help.
But you were claiming they were somehow claiming the hight moral ground - I don't think they are. And that is an important point - there have been times when Labour have implicitly or explicitly implied that they are somehow morally 'better', but that has been typically when they ended up losing, for the reasons I've indicated. Rather than implying some kind of moral superiority better to indicate:
That your opponent's record in government is shit
That your policies are, in some cases, clearly distinct from the government and aligned with what most people want
That you are competent and can do better, even if your policy intent isn't massively different
I wasn't ever disputing that. I was disputing the wisdom, or otherwise, of the Labour party trying to gain the upper hand by using this method. I don't think it will work, you evidently do. Time will tell. I don't see the need for a thesis on the issue.
Well we will see - but there are plenty of people who see this as likely to be successful. Controversial - sure, but successful.
And it isn't the usual suspect Labour supporting sourcing who seem to think this to be a likely successful approach but the default-tory FT and most astonishingly, the Daily Mail who allowed Starmer a highly positive op-ed piece on the matter. When was the last time a Labour leader was given such privileged access to the Daily Mail?
https://www.ft.com/content/a7e2908c-f058-4f64-a741-cd289afef08d
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11955043/SIR-KEIR-STARMER-Rishi-Sunak-Tories-let-criminals-away-it.html
-
But you were claiming they were somehow claiming the hight moral ground - I don't think they are. And that is an important point - there have been times when Labour have implicitly or explicitly implied that they are somehow morally 'better', but that has been typically when they ended up losing, for the reasons I've indicated. Rather than implying some kind of moral superiority better to indicate:
That your opponent's record in government is shit
That your policies are, in some cases, clearly distinct from the government and aligned with what most people want
That you are competent and can do better, even if your policy intent isn't massively different
Well we will see - but there are plenty of people who see this as likely to be successful. Controversial - sure, but successful.
And it isn't the usual suspect Labour supporting sourcing who seem to think this to be a likely successful approach but the default-tory FT and most astonishingly, the Daily Mail who allowed Starmer a highly positive op-ed piece on the matter. When was the last time a Labour leader was given such privileged access to the Daily Mail?
https://www.ft.com/content/a7e2908c-f058-4f64-a741-cd289afef08d
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11955043/SIR-KEIR-STARMER-Rishi-Sunak-Tories-let-criminals-away-it.html
And more cheerleading for lying.
-
And more cheerleading for lying.
It is an opinion - effectively can someone credibly claim to want something in government when their actions in government speak the opposite. The point being, base someone's view on their actions, not their words.
Sure it is close to the bone, but it is challenging the credibility of words, when actions suggest otherwise. None of that can be verified factually, so it isn't really lying is it? Realistically it doesn't seem very different to accusing Corbyn of anti-sematism. He clearly denied this, and I suspect he isn't personally antisemitic, but the point was that the actions of the organisation he led spoke otherwise.
I think the points in the poster that are verifiable fact, are actually evidenced as such ... on the poster.
-
It is an opinion - effectively can someone credibly claim to want something in government when their actions in government speak the opposite. The point being, base someone's view on their actions, not their words.
Sure it is close to the bone, but it is challenging the credibility of words, when actions suggest otherwise. None of that can be verified factually, so it isn't really lying is it? Realistically it doesn't seem very different to accusing Corbyn of anti-sematism. He clearly denied this, and I suspect he isn't personally antisemitic, but the point was that the actions of the organisation he led spoke otherwise.
I think the points in the poster that are verifiable fact, are actually evidenced as such ... on the poster.
No, it's an outright lie about Sunak and you are celebrating it.
-
No, it's an outright lie about Sunak and you are celebrating it.
No it isn't - it is an opinion. Effectively that the authors of the poster do no believe that Sunak can credibly think x or y because the actions of his government are the opposite of x and y. It is based on the age old concept that actions speak louder than words.
Why is this a lie:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11960037/Keir-Starmer-targets-Rishi-Sunaks-WIFE-non-dom-taxes-steps-dirty-war-against-PM.html
What's so hard to understand.
But the point is that everyone is talking about it and therefore the message about the government's record and the chasm between what they claim and what they actually do is hitting home.
-
No it isn't - it is an opinion. Effectively that the authors of the poster do no believe that Sunak can credibly think x or y because the actions of his government are the opposite of x and y. It is based on the age old concept that actions speak louder than words.
Why is this a lie:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11960037/Keir-Starmer-targets-Rishi-Sunaks-WIFE-non-dom-taxes-steps-dirty-war-against-PM.html
What's so hard to understand.
But the point is that everyone is talking about it and therefore the message about the government's record and the chasm between what they claim and what they actually do is hitting home.
Your justification of lying because it gets people talking indicates that you are no better than Johnson.
-
Your justification of lying because it gers people talking indicates that you are no better than Johnson.
But as I've pointed out it is an opinion based on whether an individual (or a government's) views should be based on their words or their actions. The point of the poster is to say it should be based on actions and results, not warm, wooly words. In what way is that a 'lie' rather than an opinion?
-
But as I've pointed out it is an opinion based on whether an individual (or a government's) views should be based on their words or their actions. The point of the poster is so say it should be based on actions and results, not warm, wooly words. In what way is that a 'lie' rather than an opinion?
And no action that Sunak has taken justifies the comment, but sinceyou don't care about lying about Sunak, you'll happily lie about that.
-
Your justification of lying because it gets people talking indicates that you are no better than Johnson.
So explain in what way the link I gave (another of the poster series) is a lie.
The claim being that due to his actions Sunak cannot credible claim not to think that '... it is right to raise taxes for working people when your family benefitted from a tax loophole'. Why, err because he and his government have raised taxes while his family has benefitted from a tax loophole that he could have chosen to close.
To govern is to choose, and you cannot then claim that the choices you made aren't somehow your responsibility. Eat all the cake and you cannot credibly claim that you wanted everyone else to have some cake - it doesn't matter how much you say that, your actions will speak louder than your words.
That's what this is all about - judge people on their actions, not their words.
-
And no action that Sunak has taken justifies the comment, but sinceyou don't care about lying about Sunak, you'll happily lie about that.
So you don't see any link between chronically underfunding the whole criminal justice system (all the way from police, through courts through to prison) and failures to catch, convict and punish criminals. Hmm, interesting.
Nor that decisions on minimum sentencing (and maximum sentences) rest with parliament and therefore if the party and government that Sunak has been part of for years and now leads had wanted to impose a minimum custodial sentence for convicted child sex offenders they could have done so. Hmm, interesting.
And of course as Chancellor, and now PM, Sunak could have abolished non-dom status, which his family personally benefitted from, and in doing so could have reduced the need to tax others, or increased funding (e.g. for the criminal justice system). But he chose not to.
To govern is to choose, but you cannot then claim that choice wasn't err, your choice, or your intention.
-
https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2023/04/15/sunak-calls-keir-a-friend-of-traffickers-and-nobody-cares-why-labour-stopped-playing-nice/content.html (https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2023/04/15/sunak-calls-keir-a-friend-of-traffickers-and-nobody-cares-why-labour-stopped-playing-nice/content.html)
Tories are privately delighted with Labour's new more aggressive approach. The gloves are off
There's some other quote along the lines, ''What ever you do, don't fight a pig. You'll end up in mud and the pigs will love it.'
-
https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2023/04/15/sunak-calls-keir-a-friend-of-traffickers-and-nobody-cares-why-labour-stopped-playing-nice/content.html (https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2023/04/15/sunak-calls-keir-a-friend-of-traffickers-and-nobody-cares-why-labour-stopped-playing-nice/content.html)There's some other quote along the lines, ''What ever you do, don't fight a pig. You'll end up in mud and the pigs will love it.'
Yvette Cooper obviously did and given she's one of the better front bench performers for Labour, and it's created infighting the Labour ranks, it's clear that it's already been detrimental to them, nevermind our political discourse.
-
... it's clear that it's already been detrimental to them ...
It isn't clear at all.
Of the two polls conducted after the ads were released and gained media coverage one shows no change, the other a small 2% uptick to Labour and even smaller 1% reduction in the Tories, resulting in their lead increasing 3%.
I suspect we will see some more polling this weekend, but from what we have so far there is no evidence that it has been detrimental in the polling, quite the reverse.
-
I suspect we will see some more polling this weekend, but from what we have so far there is no evidence that it has been detrimental in the polling, quite the reverse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad Labour’s lead is also back up to 14 points, having dipped to a recent low of 11 points last week, with Starmer’s party standing on 42% (up one point on the week) and the Tories on 28% (down two points).
-
Tories respond in the same sad idiot kind as Labour
https://youtu.be/xeZCy0-u7jU
-
More on Labour's change of stance:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/20/labour-warpath-targeting-benefit-claimants-disabled-starmer
Deprsssingly, I find myself agreeing with much of what the writer says.
A Tory party which is currently fighting for the right to display golly dolls will never lose a race to the bottom.