Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour ruling out ‘negative’ election campaign posters indi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour ruling out ‘negative’ election campaign posters indicates an underlying problem for Labour
Labour has scrapped all plans to run billboard posters of David Cameron during the general election campaign in what it says it is a deliberate attempt to avoid “negative personalised adverts” and raise the tone of debate.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.
I wonder if it will go down as one of the great election posters? It's difficult not to laugh at how they've captured EdM's awfulness outside No.10. But it also captures a potent meme for Conservative waverers.
3 months + 1 week to go. I'll be putting the first of my monthly vote and seat projections on here this time next week, based on the next 7 days of polling. I will also explain my rationale and will try to dispatch my own preferences to the dugout. I bet pb regulars will be rushing to clear their diaries, cancel appointments, banish children and cats as they drool in anticipation
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2uhlqbb223a6xf0/100 most recent YouGov polls as of 01 February 2015.jpg#
Reds and blues appear to be enjoying a recent uptick at the expense of the other parties.
Come on voters, get your act together.
Do Labour have either?
The Yougov 35% is sub 33% on a straightforward 2015/2010 Lab vote intention among the sample.
Lab: 22
SNP: 47
Net doing well:
Cameron: -33
Miliband: -65
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gjshgtgjrm/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-300115.pdf
Greek Govt right to reverse spending cuts(net)
OA: -3
Lab: +26
Should Eurozone let Greece cut repayments (net)
OA: +1
Lab: +25
Greece reverses cuts/reduces repayment - good for Eurozone economy (net)
OA: -28
Lab: -13
Support GB copying Greece (reverse cuts/reduce debt repayment)
OA: -11
Lab: +20
Pick the bones out of that one Eds.......
Should govt continue to fund royal family (net agree):
Con: +57
Lab: +4
LibD: +37
UKIP: +26
Scot: -10 (only geographical area not net supporters, next lowest London on +15)
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
- the economy
- immigration
- privatisation in the NHS
- what it would give away to the SNP
- and consequently, our nuclear deterrent
- industrial-scale rape of the children of a key set of its voters by another key set of its voters
- Trojan Horses within the education system
- an EU referendum
- David Cameron
- Tony Blair
- how united the Labour Party is compared to the other parties
- although one thing does unite them: the crapness of Ed Miliband. But they can't talk about that. Apart from behind Ed's back.
So what the hell gives Labour any reason to think it is fit to govern this country?
Simple answer. Entitlement. "We're the fucking Labour Party. Of course we should be in power. We don't HAVE to give you any other reasons."
On second thoughts, don't imagine that.
Mr. Mark, indeed. The status quo regarding leader perceptions is not something the Conservatives want to change.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
Oh, and they added 50bhp or so to the engine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
Perhaps the greater mystery is why Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph gives the dollar figure first and its sterling equivalent in brackets.
Love the Sun picture of Ed Bland as Humpty Dumpty this morning. Even better it was attached to an article by Damian McBride telling why Labour is going to be pounded like a dockside hooker.
Had to laugh at OGH's last thread heading. The diagram I saw on Twitter showed Labour heading south and the Tories ticking slightly up. If that is unchanged since September, bring it on.
I'm bloody miserable, others on her were noticeably tetchy yesterday and I'm blaming it on the weather.
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
EB: We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.
Vincent Hanna: Why is that?
EB: (indicating BAldrick, who has his mouth stuffed with a turnip) Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.
In particular, if they are mad enough to campaign on the NHS here in Staffordshire...
Mercifully they are generally polite and eschew much of the personal abuse of (some of) the potty mouthed Nats.....
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx
Back on topic, if you can't attack the enemy you really need some policies...
EDIT: There was also a Bucks UKIP to Conservative and a Bracknell Cons to UKIP
Would Gadaffi's actions have caused more suffering than is currently occurring? No.
Would Libya be a source of terrorism? No.
Would Libya be a transit hub of massive undesirable immigration to Europe? No.
Good reason Cameron doesn't talk about foreign policy.
On the subject of negativity, I don't believe for one second Labour will not go negative. All parties want to appear reasonable and positive, so will claim to be doing so even as the use negative tactics and try to claim the moral highground. In this case if the 'decision' is down to finances then they may well have decided not to plaster every billboard in the nation with a negative ad as a result, but they'll find some way of being negative of course. Though since the Tories have to rely heavily on the personal negativity re Miliband, de-emphasising the negative may be sensible from Labour, even if it is not really by choice. That seems like an unnecessarily sinister view of what seems pretty a pretty simple equation in my view. We and others seized on the opportunity to help get rid of Gaddafi because we never liked him and there seemed the possibility of improvement, a possibility which regrettably has not materialized.
The opportunity arose as Gaddafi was not just because he was hated by the Saudis, but because he wasn't liked by anyone else truly important. Even Russia and China did not veto NATO action which it was obvious would be the pretext for regime change, instead they abstained which permitted them to reserve the right to condemn the regime change if they wanted (whether or not it had led to a positive outcome) without taking any diplomatic steps to slow or prevent the action to remove him itself.
When I pointed this out over the last couple of years, PB labourites assured me that the party was just keeping its powder dry. It is increasingly looking as if there is no powder at all.
So is the application of appropriate levels of force, which we seem unwilling to do. Carpet-bombing Raqqa would seem to me to be both reasonable and proportionate.
My view on Iraq is that it was nothing to do with Saddam Hussain, it was an attempt to concentrate the enemy and get al-Qaeda to fight us in open battle on our terms. It of course went horribly wrong, and now the Islamic State has given us just that opportunity, we no longer have the bottle.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I don't like billionaire businessmen trying to frighten us either, but I am baffled as to what the first part of your sentence has to do with the latter part, and I am someone who thinks Labour will win a majority, Ed M is not as bad as advertised and Labour will not be a disaster, even though I don't support them winning myself, so I think I can be fairly objective on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/europe/27putin.html
Serbia was an ally in both World Wars. The Balkans remains a mess.
Jo Coles (who works for Ed Balls)
Katie Ghose (of Electoral Reform Society)
Rachel Maskell (who works for Unite and sits on Labour NEC)
In betting though you learn through your pocket... on here, if people have no dignity or self respect to restrain them, or respect for the truth/intellectual honesty I guess, they can keep making incorrect statements or change the levels at which their statements are true, as long as they like.. strange behaviour but it happens
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
11-15 5/4
16-20 5/4
21-25 5/1
6-10 5/1
1-5 14/1
26-30 15/1
31-35 33/1
None 33/1
Over 35 66
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
I would guess that a claim that the Tories will destroy the NHS would be claimed not to be negative because it is true, and that any similar claim will be contrasted with the subtlety-of-a-brick Tory campaign of 'Ed M is a weirdo' and said to not be personally negative at least.
On topic, the thing about negative campaigning is that it's already priced in. Voters know the Tories say that Ed is awful and Labour would eat the economy. They know that Labour says the Tories are destroying public services and the Cabinet is full of people who've never used public transport. They may agree or disagree, but they absolutely get that it's what we respectively claim. Further repetition invites eye-rolling among swing voters rather than thoughtful nods. And the risk is that voters believe both sides' negative stuff and wander off to UKIP.
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda. They sort of know that UKIP's and the Greens' policies don't add up, but they think, hey, they stand for something. Outside the core vote for the big parties, people have lost track of what they're for. That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".
How many current UKIP MEPs will leave the party before the General Election on May 7th?
Suspd at the mo..
4/6 none
6/4 one I think
I would just be happy to listen to some realists who put our own interests first.
"Back on topic, if you can't attack the enemy you really need some policies..."
and
@foxinsoxuk
"When I pointed this out over the last couple of years, PB labourites assured me that the party was just keeping its powder dry. It is increasingly looking as if there is no powder at all."
Well, I'm no expert--one of the reasons I follow this site---, but I feel that politics in this country do rather tend to follow **polarisation** more than policies. Thus I feel that the Libdems (my spell checker suggests "delibes"---what is that?) do (should continue to) have a very important role.
A general feeling about a party's centre of gravity is important and the optimistic presumption that they have a certain degree of practical managerial skill are important to me. For me Cameron fails.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
This is the problem with regional governance also. In regions like the North West and West Midlands, the big cities are included in the regions that surround them. In the south east, however, for no good reason London is broken off from the home counties that are economically one unit with it. Why should London get to benefit from all the business rates and/or corporation tax and keep it entirely from the commuter belt that staff the businesses that make the money? If we are to have regional governance, London and the home counties must be in the same region.
love, Ms Frantic.
That said, I don't see how Labour are going to be able to run a positive campaign unless they change their policies to something much more distinctive. The irony is that when the main parties are close together, they actually have to ratchet up the personal attacks on one another, simply because otherwise there would be nothing else for them to say - if they just stuck to talking about policies, they would be agreeing with each other.
...obv not Sinn Fein, but that is so unlikely to happen it kind of nullifies the Tory posters point, they might as well have put a pic of Bin Laden on there
Quite.
Hi Isam - can I get back to you on those odds? Interesting. Got to work now but will pick this up later.