According to YouGov 58% of people now think the CON Party is "sleazy and disreputable", up from 48% a year ago.
Every master strategy a winner.
And a lot of the scandals that caused this are invented bull. McAlpine. Mitchell. Now Cruddas.
The mud sticks, even when the story is untrue.
That damned librul meeja!! ;^ )
You need to reread the Cruddas judgement. The STimes dug their own grave there (not for the first time either) but the video was what was wall to wall and the public saw that and judged for themselves.
Mitchell was hardly the fops finest moment either (saved by the 'lefty' Crick) and McCalpine was twitter tw+ts.
A lot isn't all and if CCHQ think it's tough now they had better get their communications team in far better shape right quick.
Oh come on. McAlpine was much, much more than twitter. BBC Newsnight is a rather important and influential program. The entire story was rubbish, as the BBC themselves knew. The links between the BIJ and the BBC deserve more attention.
The allegations against Mitchell are also highly dubious due to the actions of the police. At worst, he swore at them under his breath. Big deal. And you think the truth coming out - that police lied - is somehow being 'saved'?
And you miss the point about Cruddas: the STimes' own actions make the whole story dubious. If you are going to do this undercover reporting, you have to do it right, and tell the right story afterwards. Otherwise you make yourself as untrustworthy as the person you are trying to sting.
Anyway, I'[m off our for a long bike ride in glorious sunshine. Enjoy yourselves!
According to YouGov 58% of people now think the CON Party is "sleazy and disreputable", up from 48% a year ago.
Every master strategy a winner.
And a lot of the scandals that caused this are invented bull. McAlpine. Mitchell. Now Cruddas.
The mud sticks, even when the story is untrue.
Hence IDS, Schapps and their dodgy welfare claims.
Those, if true, are wrong. But Labour was hardly against such manipulation, either.
But these are not the stories that corrode people's trust in a party. It is the headline stories such as 'Top Tory paedo' that do the real damage. Even when they are untrue.
According to YouGov 58% of people now think the CON Party is "sleazy and disreputable", up from 48% a year ago.
Every master strategy a winner.
And a lot of the scandals that caused this are invented bull. McAlpine. Mitchell. Now Cruddas.
The mud sticks, even when the story is untrue.
Hence IDS, Schapps and their dodgy welfare claims.
Those, if true, are wrong. But Labour was hardly against such manipulation, either.
But these are not the stories that corrode people's trust in a party. It is the headline stories such as 'Top Tory paedo' that do the real damage. Even when they are untrue.
The point being that once a story is out there the mud sticks. Even if claims made about welfare recipients are not borne out by the stats if you can get the claims reported - and the Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph can always be relied on when it comes to "scrounger" stories - they will stick. It's cynical politics, but very effective.
Comments
You need to reread the Cruddas judgement. The STimes dug their own grave there (not for the first time either) but the video was what was wall to wall and the public saw that and judged for themselves.
Mitchell was hardly the fops finest moment either (saved by the 'lefty' Crick) and McCalpine was twitter tw+ts.
A lot isn't all and if CCHQ think it's tough now they had better get their communications team in far better shape right quick.
Oh come on. McAlpine was much, much more than twitter. BBC Newsnight is a rather important and influential program. The entire story was rubbish, as the BBC themselves knew. The links between the BIJ and the BBC deserve more attention.
The allegations against Mitchell are also highly dubious due to the actions of the police. At worst, he swore at them under his breath. Big deal. And you think the truth coming out - that police lied - is somehow being 'saved'?
And you miss the point about Cruddas: the STimes' own actions make the whole story dubious. If you are going to do this undercover reporting, you have to do it right, and tell the right story afterwards. Otherwise you make yourself as untrustworthy as the person you are trying to sting.
Anyway, I'[m off our for a long bike ride in glorious sunshine. Enjoy yourselves!
Those, if true, are wrong. But Labour was hardly against such manipulation, either.
But these are not the stories that corrode people's trust in a party. It is the headline stories such as 'Top Tory paedo' that do the real damage. Even when they are untrue.
But these are not the stories that corrode people's trust in a party. It is the headline stories such as 'Top Tory paedo' that do the real damage. Even when they are untrue.
The point being that once a story is out there the mud sticks. Even if claims made about welfare recipients are not borne out by the stats if you can get the claims reported - and the Mail, Sun, Express and Telegraph can always be relied on when it comes to "scrounger" stories - they will stick. It's cynical politics, but very effective.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm