The Tory leadership is wrong on Scottish tactical voting – politicalbetting.com
The leader of the Scottish Conservatives Douglas Ross has been wrapped on the knuckles by the party’s London bosses for suggesting that voters north of the border should tactically vote Labour in certain seats in order to keep the SNP out.
Yes, they're wrong, but I contest that they don't understand the situation in Scotland. The issue is they feel like they cannot state it officially as they need to make English voters really really scared of a Labour government in order to have a chance, and knowingly nodding at such a strategy north of the border might undermine that.
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
Yes, they're wrong, but I contest that they don't understand the situation in Scotland. The issue is they feel like they cannot state it officially as they need to make English voters really really scared of a Labour government in order to have a chance, and knowingly nodding at such a strategy north of the border might undermine that.
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
Missing the point, though, isn't it? As a good Unionist Mr Ross should knuckle down to what his organ-grinder tells him to do.
Yes, they're wrong, but I contest that they don't understand the situation in Scotland. The issue is they feel like they cannot state it officially as they need to make English voters really really scared of a Labour government in order to have a chance, and knowingly nodding at such a strategy north of the border might undermine that.
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
Missing the point, though, isn't it? As a good Unionist Mr Ross should knuckle down to what his organ-grinder tells him to do.
Mr. Smithson is very powerful but it's surely a conspiracy too far to suggest he pulls Douglas Ross's strings.
Yes, they're wrong, but I contest that they don't understand the situation in Scotland. The issue is they feel like they cannot state it officially as they need to make English voters really really scared of a Labour government in order to have a chance, and knowingly nodding at such a strategy north of the border might undermine that.
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
Missing the point, though, isn't it? As a good Unionist Mr Ross should knuckle down to what his organ-grinder tells him to do.
Mr. Smithson is very powerful but it's surely a conspiracy too far to suggest he pulls Douglas Ross's strings.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Where it may filter through to the public is if the small-l liberals with media jobs treat Starmer and Labour differently as a result. Even though the media is dominated by right-wingers, there are still some small-l liberals about, and they will be concentrated in the media consumed by Labour voters.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
The problem the Tory leadership has with Ross's now withdrawn suggestion seems pretty obvious to me. It is that, if Conservative supporters were to follow his suggestion in Scotland, it would improve the electoral arithmetic for a viable Labour majority or Lab-Lib coalition government following the UK general election.
If the vast majority of Scottish seats are once again won by the SNP, there's still a realistic possibility that, faced with a refusal by Starmer to give ground on constitutional issues, the SNP will make things difficult by combining with a Conservative opposition in parliament to defeat a Lab-Lib coalition at will, making it difficult to sustain a Labour-led government for any period and making likely an early general election later in 2025 or 2026, at which the Conservatives would get a second bite at the cherry.
So it seems to me that the Conservatives' prospects are better served by the SNP holding on to seats in the face of a Labour challenge, rather than Labour winning those seats with or without Conservative tactical votes.
The problem the Tory leadership has with Ross's now withdrawn suggestion is pretty obvious to me. It is that, if Conservative supporters were to follow his suggestion in Scotland, it would improve the electoral arithmetic for a viable Labour majority or Lab-Lib coalition government following the UK general election.
If the vast majority of Scottish seats are once again won by the SNP, there's still a realistic possibility that, faced with a refusal by Starmer to give ground on constitutional issues, the SNP will make things difficult by combining with a Conservative opposition in parliament to defeat a Lab-Lib coalition at will, making it difficult to sustain a Labour-led government for any period and making likely an early general election later in 2025 or 2026, at which the Conservatives would get a second bite at the cherry.
So it seems to me that the Conservatives' prospects are better served by the SNP holding on to seats in the face of a Labour challenge, rather than Labour winning those seats with or without Conservative tactical votes.
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
The problem the Tory leadership has with Ross's now withdrawn suggestion seems pretty obvious to me. It is that, if Conservative supporters were to follow his suggestion in Scotland, it would improve the electoral arithmetic for a viable Labour majority or Lab-Lib coalition government following the UK general election.
If the vast majority of Scottish seats are once again won by the SNP, there's still a realistic possibility that, faced with a refusal by Starmer to give ground on constitutional issues, the SNP will make things difficult by combining with a Conservative opposition in parliament to defeat a Lab-Lib coalition at will, making it difficult to sustain a Labour-led government for any period and making likely an early general election later in 2025 or 2026, at which the Conservatives would get a second bite at the cherry.
So it seems to me that the Conservatives' prospects are better served by the SNP holding on to seats in the face of a Labour challenge, rather than Labour winning those seats with or without Conservative tactical votes.
Even more simply, an SNP role in the governing majority gives the Tories an attack line, in a way the Lib Dems can't quite match up to.
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
Well, they do. They think it will bring about the return of St. Jez, or the installation of another moron, who will give them all well paid jobs doing absolutely nowt.
It makes no odds to idiots like this whether there is a Labour government or not, their cosseted lives will remain largely the same.
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
Well, they do. They think it will bring about the return of St. Jez, or the installation of another moron, who will give them all well paid jobs doing absolutely nowt.
It makes no odds to idiots like this whether there is a Labour government or not, their cosseted lives will remain largely the same.
Owen Jones is simply a left wing Dan Hodges. He sold out years ago to following whatever maintains him in “clicks”.
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
The problem the Tory leadership has with Ross's now withdrawn suggestion seems pretty obvious to me. It is that, if Conservative supporters were to follow his suggestion in Scotland, it would improve the electoral arithmetic for a viable Labour majority or Lab-Lib coalition government following the UK general election.
If the vast majority of Scottish seats are once again won by the SNP, there's still a realistic possibility that, faced with a refusal by Starmer to give ground on constitutional issues, the SNP will make things difficult by combining with a Conservative opposition in parliament to defeat a Lab-Lib coalition at will, making it difficult to sustain a Labour-led government for any period and making likely an early general election later in 2025 or 2026, at which the Conservatives would get a second bite at the cherry.
So it seems to me that the Conservatives' prospects are better served by the SNP holding on to seats in the face of a Labour challenge, rather than Labour winning those seats with or without Conservative tactical votes.
Yes - that in terms of big picture strategy, it suits the SNP to have Tory governments in Westminster that few Scots have supported, is key. And was underappreciated during all the shenanigans that led up to the 2019 GE - not least by the LibDems first and Labour next, who allowed the SNP to pick the election date at the best possible moment for the Tories.
The SNP champions the anti-Tory cause north of the border whilst praying that their enemy will get elected south of it. Tory HQ knows this, and to an extent the relationship is symbiotic since having the SNP dominant in Scotland makes their trump card of frightening the English with the risk of nationalist leverage potent in the first place. If we got back to Labour dominance in Scotland with the SNP marginalised (and the Nats are certainly giving it their best shot….) then the Tory hand would be missing its Ace.
How can anyone read the comments of Owen Jones and not conclude that he and his fellow travellers on the far left want Starmer to fail at the next general election?
Well, they do. They think it will bring about the return of St. Jez, or the installation of another moron, who will give them all well paid jobs doing absolutely nowt.
It makes no odds to idiots like this whether there is a Labour government or not, their cosseted lives will remain largely the same.
It’s not uncommon for people to be so far into party activism, where your enemies are behind you, to coin a parliamentary phrase, that defeating those of a different view on your own side becomes the obsession. It’s easier if you’re in an activist role where you don’t have the job of regularly carrying your side’s flag into battle - hence why councillors and MPs within all parties have tended to be more moderate than the activists behind them - but even MPs aren’t immune. The right can’t really crow any more after their internal obsessions have grown and been on such dramatic display over recent years.
That said, the attack ad on Sunak was dumb politics and a Labour error, and credit to those on the left who are calling it for what it is.
What Macron says about Taiwan -- the core security theme in the Indo-Pacific -- vindicates the Australian decision to cancel the submarine deal with France and to create AUKUS with the UK and the US.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
Back in the mists of time and during a previous technical manifestation of the site there was such a thing named Ye Olde Edmund’s Widget, provided generously foc. An unintended consequence was PB Tories endlessly going on about the irritating posters they were specifically blocking using the widget, which was an odd kind of ignoring.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
Quite a few would pay to ignore the filth you post.
Xi Jinping -- a chapeau to you 🎩. You flattered Macron, fed his ego, it was just too easy. Macron responded by helping to throw a wedge into #transatlanticrelations, into the EU, & possibly NATO. Not bad for 6 hours of Xi's valuable time. Macron's #CarnivalofVanity continues.
Xi Jinping -- a chapeau to you 🎩. You flattered Macron, fed his ego, it was just too easy. Macron responded by helping to throw a wedge into #transatlanticrelations, into the EU, & possibly NATO. Not bad for 6 hours of Xi's valuable time. Macron's #CarnivalofVanity continues.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
Mike Smithson - 'Ross is right here and the Sunak leadership is wrong and have shown that they simply don’t understand Scottish politics.
For ever since the huge rise of the SNP following the 2014 IndyRef there has been a strong pattern of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory voters getting behind the candidate in their constituency most likely to stop the SNP.
My guess is that this practice, which arguably has helped the Tories win more Scottish seats overall, will continue whatever the London bosses might say.'
Mike, you hit the nail on the head! And more importantly Douglas Ross is going to do what he did back in the 2021 Holyrood electiion campaign, he is going to ignore the same journalists/commentators criticism of his campaign which then saw him retain the gains that Ruth Davidson achieved back in the 2016 Holyood election despite a Boris Johnson premiership in Downing Street that cost the SConservatives half their MPs in the 2019 GE.
Its a win win for Douglas Ross if the Westminster Conservatives criticise him for this, he defines and declares his independence from Westminster like a London Mayor candidate would. And already wise SLabour commentators are pointing out that he is deliberately trying to undermine the SLabour party who would not risk being seen to be in cahoots with the SConservatives in a joint tactical voting campaign because they are desperately trying to woo back the left leaning SLabour voters that went to the SNP. But that is all window dressing for Douglas Ross if the real message reaches those SLabour/SLibdem voters in the Highlands, North East, West Coast and the Borders and other SConservative/SNP marginal seats they gained and then lost between the 2017/2019 GEs.
A gentle reminder from the previous thread, back in the 1992 GE where the Conservatives bucked the polling trend and the Exit poll, their only Conservative gain on the night was the Scottish seat Aberdeen South...
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Yeah, that is the thing. There were reports about labour bosses being 'happy' with how the ads had gone down, conclusions apparently based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that it had generated a lot of publicity, although the publicity it did generate was largely self generated, by reference to unease within the party about the ads.
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Yeah, that is the thing. There were reports about labour bosses being 'happy' with how the ads had gone down, conclusions apparently based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that it had generated a lot of publicity, although the publicity it did generate was largely self generated, by reference to unease within the party about the ads.
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
It is a real misstep by Starmer and labour
As a former labour stragist put it you have to be certain your poster is believable and credible and this is not and the message just gets lost
He went on to say he would not have published it
Starmer and labour have put themselves alongside Braverman with these ill conceived posters
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Yeah, that is the thing. There were reports about labour bosses being 'happy' with how the ads had gone down, conclusions apparently based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that it had generated a lot of publicity, although the publicity it did generate was largely self generated, by reference to unease within the party about the ads.
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
It is a real misstep by Starmer and labour
As a former labour stragist put it you have to be certain your poster is believable and credible and this is not and the message just gets lost
He went on to say he would not have published it
Starmer and labour have put themselves alongside Braverman with these ill conceived posters
It reminded me of that terrible ‘we can’t go on like this’ poster from Cameron, which sparked a thousand internet memes as well.
But bad as that was, and stupid as it was, at least that wasn’t trying to smear his opponent directly.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Yeah, that is the thing. There were reports about labour bosses being 'happy' with how the ads had gone down, conclusions apparently based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that it had generated a lot of publicity, although the publicity it did generate was largely self generated, by reference to unease within the party about the ads.
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
I still remember the Labour Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes campaign ads where they tried to negatively dipict David Cameron as Gene Hunt sitting on an Audi Quattro with the captions 'don't let him take Britain back to the 1980's' and 'Fire up the quattro its time for change'. I really hope that David Cameron's campaign team sent the Labour spads behind that idea a crate of beer with the message no hard feelings but thanks...
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
And whilst your comment might not be bigoted, it is the politics of fantasyland. I struggle to form a view on the endless (important) debates about the rights of women vs the rights of trans people. It’s a complex issue.
But the one crystal clear conclusion for me is that rights are never paramount. They are always the starting point for a messy compromise at an institutional or societal level. To deny this and to use the language of rights being paramount is immature politics.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
The rights of both women and men who think they are women need to be balanced.
The recent letter from the EHRC sets out the advantages of clarifying “sex” = “biological sex” but also points out that this carries potential disadvantages for people who identify as other than their biological sex.
The mess the census has made by using “inclusive” language that has evidently confused non-native English speakers illustrates the dangers of believing that “inclusion” should only cover gender identity. Either that or Newham is indeed the “trans capital” of the U.K. and one in 67 Muslims are trans…
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Oh dear, what are they thinking? Nothing positive to say at all.
Hope they like choosing the mud fight with the pigs, because the pigs are definitely going to enjoy it.
The reaction of some PBers is actually quite funny, I decided to visit the PB thread the day Boris Johnson smeared Sir Keir Starmer over Jimmy Savile.
For maximum lolz I may share the comments from that day of the PBers who cheered that smear but seem outraged by these ads.
Better still share it with the mountain of Labour supporters who are expressing the bulk of the outrage. Smarter has trashed how own nice guy image. Game on.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Well right now they’re winding up each other, while their opponents are laughing at them and producing mocking posters.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Yet we kept getting told the red wall has come back to Labour. Anybody would think the Labour party don't believe the polls.....or are sure about their leader....
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Oh dear, what are they thinking? Nothing positive to say at all.
Hope they like choosing the mud fight with the pigs, because the pigs are definitely going to enjoy it.
The reaction of some PBers is actually quite funny, I decided to visit the PB thread the day Boris Johnson smeared Sir Keir Starmer over Jimmy Savile.
For maximum lolz I may share the comments from that day of the PBers who cheered that smear but seem outraged by these ads.
Look, all they’re saying is that Labour is the party of the moral high ground while the Tories are the party of nasty, smeary, negative politics. Seems remarkably honest to me.
Of course Douglas Ross is right in this. He has correctly assessed the real enemy who threaten the Union and he is willing to support the Soviet Union, sorry Labour, to fight it. Rishi thinks he has bigger fish to fry, and maybe he does, but in Scotland the efficiency of the Unionist vote needs to improve to take full advantage of the current SNP weakness.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Well right now they’re winding up each other, while their opponents are laughing at them and producing mocking posters.
Just like Labour did in 2009/2010.
The smarter thing for the Tories to have done was to ignore it, It’s generally not the wisest thing to to to cede the agenda to the opposition.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Oh dear, the Labour party is going to aim for the man and not the ball when it comes to the next GE, its just a shame that they don't have a star goalscorer who will knock the campaign out of the park like Blair did in 1997. Lets hope that Keir Starmer doesn't keep taking a tumble at the beach when it comes to his personal polling...
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
Another problem is that the Corbyn era influx of MP's represents an endless goldmine for the tories to dig in to. Not to mention the radical groups still clinging on to the labour party. The conservatives can really damage Starmer with 'guilt by association'.
It is just sad more than anything else. I honestly thought Starmer was trying to rise above all this. It is particularly sad that he, a KC and former DPP, can peddle such a misleading narrative on the courts and sentencing.
It would be good to look in to the evidence of how other progressive parties have come to power around the world over the last decade, I am not convinced it is with these type of personal attacks.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
I’m not defending the posters and I’ve said they are a mistake but I’m pointing your hypocrisy and that of the Tory Party.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Well right now they’re winding up each other, while their opponents are laughing at them and producing mocking posters.
Just like Labour did in 2009/2010.
The smarter thing for the Tories to have done was to ignore it, It’s generally not the wisest thing to to to cede the agenda to the opposition.
Where are you getting the narrative it is the conservatives leading the attack on these posters
Haven't you read the guardian and listened to the media condemning the nature of them
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
I’m not defending the posters and I’ve said they are a mistake but I’m pointing your hypocrisy and that of the Tory Party.
Not mine when I did not endorse Johnson or Braverman's comments
I support Sunak as I see him as a decent and competent PM and will defend him accordingly
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Oh dear, what are they thinking? Nothing positive to say at all.
Hope they like choosing the mud fight with the pigs, because the pigs are definitely going to enjoy it.
The reaction of some PBers is actually quite funny, I decided to visit the PB thread the day Boris Johnson smeared Sir Keir Starmer over Jimmy Savile.
For maximum lolz I may share the comments from that day of the PBers who cheered that smear but seem outraged by these ads.
Look, all they’re saying is that Labour is the party of the moral high ground while the Tories are the party of nasty, smeary, negative politics. Seems remarkably honest to me.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
The problem is the accompanying article and mail leader takes him apart
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
Yep, the idea that the Tories weren’t going to be doing their own attack ads and using their surrogates in the media to go after Starmer personally is a bit far-fetched when they do it at every single election to every Labour leader. The unusual bit is Labour doing it first.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Well right now they’re winding up each other, while their opponents are laughing at them and producing mocking posters.
Just like Labour did in 2009/2010.
The smarter thing for the Tories to have done was to ignore it, It’s generally not the wisest thing to to to cede the agenda to the opposition.
Where are you getting the narrative it is the conservatives leading the attack on these posters
Haven't you read the guardian and listened to the media condemning the nature of them
And you think Labour doesn’t want this? They spent the last two years distancing themselves from the Guardian looking for a broader audience. You need to reflect about what is actually going on here,
Essentially you keep banging on loudly on how Labour have changed.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Oh dear, what are they thinking? Nothing positive to say at all.
Hope they like choosing the mud fight with the pigs, because the pigs are definitely going to enjoy it.
The reaction of some PBers is actually quite funny, I decided to visit the PB thread the day Boris Johnson smeared Sir Keir Starmer over Jimmy Savile.
For maximum lolz I may share the comments from that day of the PBers who cheered that smear but seem outraged by these ads.
Oh my God, you mean anonymous posters on a politics blog, many of whom treat their political affiliation like it’s a football team, aren’t entirely consistent in their views and are sometimes hypocritical? Story of the decade.
Attacks might be tempting but they don't always work. I recall disagreeing with pro-EU types here who were giggling confidently about Cameron's 'little England' comments, as if attaching an insult to the majority of the electorate with the name of Farage would make it work.
Starmer's over-egged the cake. His poll lead is so big the effect will likely be minimal, but this is a mistep nonetheless.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
They said the same about the EU right up to the exit poll.....
They said it in the recent Australian elections, and lo, it turned out to be the case. If I recall correctly evidence suggested that voters were actually turned off by the trans skeptic culture warriors.
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Well right now they’re winding up each other, while their opponents are laughing at them and producing mocking posters.
Just like Labour did in 2009/2010.
The smarter thing for the Tories to have done was to ignore it, It’s generally not the wisest thing to to to cede the agenda to the opposition.
Where are you getting the narrative it is the conservatives leading the attack on these posters
Haven't you read the guardian and listened to the media condemning the nature of them
And you think Labour doesn’t want this? They spent the last two years distancing themselves from the Guardian looking for a broader audience. You need to reflect about what is actually going on here,
Essentially you keep banging on loudly on how Labour have changed.
Indeed. You can only expel Corbyn so many times. Eventually you need a different drum.
I find it hard to get excited about these posters. Its just politics and those who were deluded enough to believe that Labour are morally superior are the same people and mindset that have lost the last 4 elections. Starmer is playing to win, as he should.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
The problem is the accompanying article and mail leader takes him apart
That was going to happen anyway. Starmer getting a piece in the Mail is the new bit.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Its not a bad article by Starmer in the Daily Mail. It is depressing because it is pandering to a public perception of an issue rather than perhaps the reality of it, but such is politics in a democracy.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
They said the same about the EU right up to the exit poll.....
They said it in the recent Australian elections, and lo, it turned out to be the case. If I recall correctly evidence suggested that voters were actually turned off by the trans skeptic culture warriors.
I recall a quote from one bitter Liberal politician that ScoMo had dedicated one entire week of the campaign to "trans shit".
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
I’m not defending the posters and I’ve said they are a mistake but I’m pointing your hypocrisy and that of the Tory Party.
Not mine when I did not endorse Johnson or Braverman's comments
I support Sunak as I see him as a decent and competent PM and will defend him accordingly
Sunak appointed Braverman and keeps her in office. How is that decent? It’s expedient, and maybe politically unavoidable, but those are very different things.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
The problem is the accompanying article and mail leader takes him apart
Having watched the Tory party do this many times, one truism is that each level of response and counter-response will get less attention. So whilst we have Starmer’s article linked here, no one has linked the accompanying op-ed by the paper. I bet far fewer will read it.
In turn, far fewer will read the Twitter responses to the Labour ads than the ads themselves. And so they might achieve their aim. Like Southam, I wish it weren’t so, but I can’t decide if I blame Labour for recognising and responding to the reality of media campaigning.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Its not a bad article by Starmer in the Daily Mail. It is depressing because it is pandering to a public perception of an issue rather than perhaps the reality of it, but such is politics in a democracy.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
I think what Starmer is banking on is the Government having to hit back. Rather than joining the Tories in the gutter, he's attempting to drag them into a fight about law and justice and he feels confident he can get the Tories on this. The adverts will continue until the Tories respond, and when they do, they'll highlight their own record.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Comments
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1644958328945274881
How can anyone watch this and not conclude Keir Starmer isn't as dishonest as he is devoid of principle?
To argue otherwise, you have to become a liar yourself, which is why - as the expression goes - 'a fish rots from the head down'.
https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1645152275311075328
If the vast majority of Scottish seats are once again won by the SNP, there's still a realistic possibility that, faced with a refusal by Starmer to give ground on constitutional issues, the SNP will make things difficult by combining with a Conservative opposition in parliament to defeat a Lab-Lib coalition at will, making it difficult to sustain a Labour-led government for any period and making likely an early general election later in 2025 or 2026, at which the Conservatives would get a second bite at the cherry.
So it seems to me that the Conservatives' prospects are better served by the SNP holding on to seats in the face of a Labour challenge, rather than Labour winning those seats with or without Conservative tactical votes.
It makes no odds to idiots like this whether there is a Labour government or not, their cosseted lives will remain largely the same.
It makes no odds to idiots like this whether there is a Labour government or not, their cosseted lives will remain largely the same.
Owen Jones is simply a left wing Dan Hodges. He sold out years ago to following whatever maintains him in “clicks”.
The SNP champions the anti-Tory cause north of the border whilst praying that their enemy will get elected south of it. Tory HQ knows this, and to an extent the relationship is symbiotic since having the SNP dominant in Scotland makes their trump card of frightening the English with the risk of nationalist leverage potent in the first place. If we got back to Labour dominance in Scotland with the SNP marginalised (and the Nats are certainly giving it their best shot….) then the Tory hand would be missing its Ace.
That said, the attack ad on Sunak was dumb politics and a Labour error, and credit to those on the left who are calling it for what it is.
https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1645094073219391488
An unintended consequence was PB Tories endlessly going on about the irritating posters they were specifically blocking using the widget, which was an odd kind of ignoring.
Macron responded by helping to throw a wedge into #transatlanticrelations, into the EU, & possibly NATO. Not bad for 6 hours of Xi's valuable time. Macron's #CarnivalofVanity continues.
https://twitter.com/theresaafallon/status/1645146499771146240
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
For ever since the huge rise of the SNP following the 2014 IndyRef there has been a strong pattern of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory voters getting behind the candidate in their constituency most likely to stop the SNP.
My guess is that this practice, which arguably has helped the Tories win more Scottish seats overall, will continue whatever the London bosses might say.'
Mike, you hit the nail on the head! And more importantly Douglas Ross is going to do what he did back in the 2021 Holyrood electiion campaign, he is going to ignore the same journalists/commentators criticism of his campaign which then saw him retain the gains that Ruth Davidson achieved back in the 2016 Holyood election despite a Boris Johnson premiership in Downing Street that cost the SConservatives half their MPs in the 2019 GE.
Its a win win for Douglas Ross if the Westminster Conservatives criticise him for this, he defines and declares his independence from Westminster like a London Mayor candidate would. And already wise SLabour commentators are pointing out that he is deliberately trying to undermine the SLabour party who would not risk being seen to be in cahoots with the SConservatives in a joint tactical voting campaign because they are desperately trying to woo back the left leaning SLabour voters that went to the SNP. But that is all window dressing for Douglas Ross if the real message reaches those SLabour/SLibdem voters in the Highlands, North East, West Coast and the Borders and other SConservative/SNP marginal seats they gained and then lost between the 2017/2019 GEs.
A gentle reminder from the previous thread, back in the 1992 GE where the Conservatives bucked the polling trend and the Exit poll, their only Conservative gain on the night was the Scottish seat Aberdeen South...
https://unherd.com/2023/04/how-thatcherism-outgrew-its-mistress/
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
As a former labour stragist put it you have to be certain your poster is believable and credible and this is not and the message just gets lost
He went on to say he would not have published it
Starmer and labour have put themselves alongside Braverman with these ill conceived posters
But bad as that was, and stupid as it was, at least that wasn’t trying to smear his opponent directly.
And whilst your comment might not be bigoted, it is the politics of fantasyland. I struggle to form a view on the endless (important) debates about the rights of women vs the rights of trans people. It’s a complex issue.
But the one crystal clear conclusion for me is that rights are never paramount. They are always the starting point for a messy compromise at an institutional or societal level. To deny this and to use the language of rights being paramount is immature politics.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-attack-ads-to-blame-sunak-for-crashing-economy-9sths6wz2
The recent letter from the EHRC sets out the advantages of clarifying “sex” = “biological sex” but also points out that this carries potential disadvantages for people who identify as other than their biological sex.
The mess the census has made by using “inclusive” language that has evidently confused non-native English speakers illustrates the dangers of believing that “inclusion” should only cover gender identity. Either that or Newham is indeed the “trans capital” of the U.K. and one in 67 Muslims are trans…
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
How many “cervix havers” are going to die because they didn’t realise that meant, them, “women” so should come forward for a smear test?
Stonewall’s influence has been destructive and harmful.
Hope they like choosing the mud fight with the pigs, because the pigs are definitely going to enjoy it.
For maximum lolz I may share the comments from that day of the PBers who cheered that smear but seem outraged by these ads.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
Similarly, never wise to engage arch-smearers in a smear campaign. It will likely end badly.
Even in the best case scenario it feeds the ‘they’re all the same’ narrative which Labour really need to break free from.
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
The smarter thing for the Tories to have done was to ignore it, It’s generally not the wisest thing to to to cede the agenda to the opposition.
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com
Do voters care about trans rights?
https://twitter.com/BNHWalker/status/1643274157688274946?cxt=HHwWhIC22frIis4tAAAA
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May
elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!!
Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
It is just sad more than anything else. I honestly thought Starmer was trying to rise above all this. It is particularly sad that he, a KC and former DPP, can peddle such a misleading narrative on the courts and sentencing.
It would be good to look in to the evidence of how other progressive parties have come to power around the world over the last decade, I am not convinced it is with these type of personal attacks.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11955043/SIR-KEIR-STARMER-Rishi-Sunak-Tories-let-criminals-away-it.html
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Haven't you read the guardian and listened to the media condemning the nature of them
I support Sunak as I see him as a decent and competent PM and will defend him accordingly
Essentially you keep banging on loudly on how Labour have changed.
Attacks might be tempting but they don't always work. I recall disagreeing with pro-EU types here who were giggling confidently about Cameron's 'little England' comments, as if attaching an insult to the majority of the electorate with the name of Farage would make it work.
Starmer's over-egged the cake. His poll lead is so big the effect will likely be minimal, but this is a mistep nonetheless.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-to-rerun-snp-leader-vote-after-peter-murrell-s-arrest-pnqfpdvhq
I find it hard to get excited about these posters. Its just politics and those who were deluded enough to believe that Labour are morally superior are the same people and mindset that have lost the last 4 elections. Starmer is playing to win, as he should.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
Having watched the Tory party do this many times, one truism is that each level of response and counter-response will get less attention. So whilst we have Starmer’s article linked here, no one has linked the accompanying op-ed by the paper. I bet far fewer will read it.
In turn, far fewer will read the Twitter responses to the Labour ads than the ads themselves. And so they might achieve their aim. Like Southam, I wish it weren’t so, but I can’t decide if I blame Labour for recognising and responding to the reality of media campaigning.
That's what I think the strategy is, anyway.